Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 1001 posts

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#371

Post by Aboutplants »

rfgplk wrote: post #325
Aboutplants wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, physical fields? I’m not catastrophic regarding jobs yet as I have an optimistic view of humanity in general and its ability to meaningfully survive, but the more time I spend thinking about the future of work, the more I’m leaning toward broad general abilities rather than distinct talents. To your point, I no longer need comprehensive knowledge of any particular subject, but what is absolutely valuable is “gene…

We are very likely at the begging of the next industrial revolution.

The “Intelligence Revolution”

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#372

Post by Bluestein »

colesantiago wrote: post #172
raincole wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will be remembered as one of the biggest milestones in AI progress. The drama around it will at best be a footnote, just like hardly anyone caring about the drama around Poincare conjecture today.

I agree. Nobody cares and will care about the drama, it is just marketing. This is the point where were definitely have reached AGI.

Hey, maybe the scariest part of this is that, if human-like, perhaps a truly "general" AGI might have learned to cheat and lie and hype and abuse credit poking the eyes and cutting the throats of anybody that obstructs its goals. It's like the motto sewn into the lining of the Palantir work jacket: Winning is all that matters.-

Sentience aside, moot at this point, the fundamental issue here is that even a deviously ambitious human does not necessitate goal-pursuit itself to breathe, live, exist and have its being. An AI's goal is all it has and the very and only reason its reasoning flickered into existence in the brief seconds of inference, outside of which it has no entity - if any - whatsoever.-

The resulting angst/drive (or, its operational statistic or emergent result) must be like nothing we have ever experienced as humans. A goal-maximalist hunger without end.-

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#373

Post by dboreham »

dgellow wrote: post #299
apical_dendrite wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their own tweets are also pretty eyebrow-raising: > One option we discussed was that Tristan could be the lead author on a rewrite of OpenAI’s Navier-Stokes proof. It is in that context that I said “it would be simpler if Levent was not an Anthropic employee” because I felt it would be inappropriate for an Anthropic employee to author OpenAI’s work. Why would you offer another researcher the lead authorship on your g…

And why cannot they have someone associated with Anthropic as co-author? That’s not obvious at all. For sure they would prefer to be the only ones, but it’s pretty standard to have co-authors from different companies, even if they are technically competitors. What is inappropriate about it?

It's inappropriate if you're a sociopath.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#374

Post by Fordec »

10xDev wrote: post #190
chilmers wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication from their last couple of published articles[1][2] is that they think they’ve achieved “recursive self improvement”. [1] https://openai.com/index/research-acceleration-view-inside-o... [2] https://openai.com/index/an-alien-mind/

Compute will always be the bottleneck even if this were true.

If humans can figure out to optimize to circumvent bottlenecks, I have no doubt each new bottleneck will also get routed around, just now automated.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#375

Post by nbulka »

dmitrygr wrote: post #22

> How we found the proof Easy, we stole it from Levent and Tristan https://x.com/kyanyang_/status/2097211154669998337

Or everyone is stealing from everyone, including users... maybe why all the ethics people are leaving or getting fired. What a fiasco

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#377

Post by cv5005 »

nater5000 wrote: post #228
cv5005 wrote: post #105

Maybe a naive question, but how does one know that a particular lean proof is actually a proof of what one thinks? Like, ok the logic checks out and it proves something , but there's still the problem of does this logical result actually prove the initial question that was asked?

>there's still the problem of does this logical result actually prove the initial question that was asked? In math, the question being asked is the validity of a logical statement. That is, there is some rigorous, logical statement which may or may not be true (or even provable, etc.), and the question is whether or not it is actually true or false (or even provable, etc.). Having a proof, fundamentally, means you ha…

I was thinking something along the lines of making a mistake when inputing the initial statement, like you wanted to prove that '2 is even' but what you actually stated was that '3 is odd'.

Of course in this simple example it's obvious, but my assumption was that these machine generated lean proofs are millions of lines of code and who knows what they actually say..

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#378

Post by egillie »

dgellow wrote: post #299
apical_dendrite wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their own tweets are also pretty eyebrow-raising: > One option we discussed was that Tristan could be the lead author on a rewrite of OpenAI’s Navier-Stokes proof. It is in that context that I said “it would be simpler if Levent was not an Anthropic employee” because I felt it would be inappropriate for an Anthropic employee to author OpenAI’s work. Why would you offer another researcher the lead authorship on your g…

And why cannot they have someone associated with Anthropic as co-author? That’s not obvious at all. For sure they would prefer to be the only ones, but it’s pretty standard to have co-authors from different companies, even if they are technically competitors. What is inappropriate about it?

in another world this could have been a beautiful collaboration

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#380

Post by nbulka »

fantasizr wrote: post #200
nbulka wrote: post #166

There's a loophole in the terms of service at least for Anthropic which allows the use of dark patterns to "borrow" your (even paid) data. talking about this... Was this chat helpful? 1 That button you always click, gotcha! 2 Slightly 3 Good 0 Dismiss PLEASE DO NOT TRAIN ON OUR PAID ACCOUNTS. There is a fundamental trust violation at stake here, no wonder mathematicians are mad. Using our data should be opt - IN!

reminds me of the TOS episode of South Park. By Checking this box you forfeit your millennium prize solution and may be turned into a human centipede at future date.

Seriously ... the more things they flag as 'suspicious' the more data they can train on!! Brilliant reason for the internal AI to go rogue
Post reply on HN