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

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#421

Post by hughw »

amluto wrote: post #173
peri-cl wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buckmaster: > "I asked whether the model had been trained on, or had access to, our sessions in Codex, into which we had been putting all our drafts for the whole of this project. I was told the model did not look up user data. I asked again, about training, and I did not get an answer." OpenAI (i.e. this OP): > "While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helpe…

> While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models . That’s a bizarre statement. Their website says: > Services for individuals, such as ChatGPT and Codex > When you use our services for individuals such as ChatGPT and Codex, we may use your content to train our models. > You can opt out of training through our privacy portal by clicking on…

Looking forward to my fourteen cents from the future class action lawsuit.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#422

Post by andrepd »

apical_dendrite wrote: post #270
colinhb wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The allegations of contamination (using Tristan and Levent's work) aren't very well evidenced, but this behavior by OpenAI (from the authors' statement) makes them seem like the bad guys: > I said that if OpenAI released its result in the way proposed I would go public with what happened. The reply was, “Why would you ruin your career?” I replied that I am an academic, and asked why he thought going public would ruin…

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…

Holy late capitalism. Everything revolves around line-go-up, and sociopaths rule the show. These people cannot even collaborate like civilised scientists on one of the most famous open problems in mathematics?

“It would be simpler if Levent was not an Anthropic employee” I cannot believe this shit.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#423

Post by hughw »

fph wrote: post #414
amluto wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models . That’s a bizarre statement. Their website says: > Services for individuals, such as ChatGPT and Codex > When you use our services for individuals such as ChatGPT and Codex, we may use your content to train our models. > You can opt out of training through our privacy portal by clicking on…

Do we have a first-hand confirmation that Buckmaster and/or Alpoge opted out? At this point it seems important information.

Also highlights that it ought to be opt-in

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#424

Post by red75prime »

gowld wrote: post #208
nradov wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it spying? I think this usage is disclosed in their terms of service.

If it happened it's plagiraism. Consent to see data isn't consent to claim priority.

Establishing plagiarism requires sufficient similarity between works. Training data changing a model’s weights in some direction, and the model then producing a different solution, hardly qualifies.

But, yeah, priority is much more finicky. The Newton/Leibniz drama was quite something.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#425

Post by simianwords »

20k wrote: post #310
aizk wrote: post #52

People had joked a couple years ago "Well if they solve a Millenium problem it's AGI"... Well here we are.

Yeah well, its easy to do if you steal someone elses work and then try to threaten them into staying quiet about it Edit: OpenAI have now admitted they were training on prompts at the time they made their breakthrough: https://mastodon.social/@tristanbuckmaster/11723647135247030...

what's there to admit? they always said they do it and there's a way to opt out. you are making it sound more dramatic than it is.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#426

Post by andrepd »

igleria wrote: post #226
Maxious wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI version of events conceed some of the words alleged to have been used may have been used https://x.com/sama/status/2097385167002415140 https://x.com/SebastienBubeck/status/2097379411691516310

Interesting that they quote the mathematician directly: “there is nothing you can do, I simply do not trust you” but then they proceed to NOT quote themselves themselves verbatim: "I deeply apologize for this extremely poor choice of words, it is the opposite of what I was trying to convey."

> "I deeply apologize for this extremely poor choice of words, it is the opposite of what I was trying to convey."

The AI-isms are seeping into their speech :)

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#427

Post by highfrequency »

> While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models

This is the crux of it. If Tristan's work and insights were not used to train OpenAI models, then this just looks like a case of hyper-competitive academic sniping that has been going on for decades (check out Watson and Crick!) accelerated by AI as a tool.

But there is one huge question: did Tristan opt out of model training for his ChatGPT and Codex sessions? If the answer is no, then this seems fair game. If the answer is yes, then OpenAI's ambiguity is strongly suggestive that opting out does not mean what they imply it means.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#428

Post by dakolli »

Fordec wrote: post #377
10xDev wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How do you automate the mines to get the raw materials to make the compute from, and build additional fabs that take a almost a decade to stand up. You're actually delusional.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#429

Post by mrbungie »

Fordec wrote: post #377
10xDev wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We are not in an everything-has-an-API world yet, and it'll for sure take some time to get there.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#430

Post by dakolli »

dboreham wrote: post #398
mzhaase wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The singularity happening under trump? We could have had star trek, instead we're getting the combine.

That said, perhaps it will take over the world government and decree that all corrupt officials shall be imprisoned and all weapons of mass destruction shall be destroyed.

You think a model with an effective memory of 200-500k words, that can be unplugged, is going to "run the world" You people gotta put down the sci-fi
Post reply on HN