Live data from Hacker News

On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

openai.com

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#431

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

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#432

"we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models ." What a landmine sentence to bury in this report, you can't rule out your models were spying on other researchers?

More like helped improve our work (the disproof)

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#434

It seems like some other mathematicians (not affiliated with openAI) have also (or close to) done this. A statement was posted about the surrounding events by one of the them: https://cims.nyu.edu/%7Etristanb/statement.pdf Also Terrence Tao's post: https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117233528517340774

I just want to add to this another update by the author as well:

https://mastodon.social/@tristanbuckmaster/11723647135247030...

Which seems to be very directly accusing OpenAI of plagiarism

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#436

My take: 1. It shows what even this wave of AI can actually do. 2. I wish it were done by different folks, ideally under some kind of public control like NASA research or the NPR model. 3. Keep in mind: natural science is different. It's not always a matter of computation. Computer science folks often struggle with this -- but this virtual world here does not actually exist. Everything is physical, including informat…

Most experimental physics and other natural sciences are strongly driven by their theoretical siblings, i.e. in particle research nothing gets built without a solid theoretical foundation of what you expect to find (or where you expect existing theories to break down), the same is true in other areas, no one is doing an experiment in quantum physics before they have a solid theoretical understanding of the effects th…

It will be interesting to see if it can come up with a cheaper to construct graviton detection experiment

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#438
post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They kind of did though, they were hoping to keep the fact that they may well have plagiarised these researchers unpublished work quiet. They did not want this to turn into a scandal about the fact that they appear to be training on prompts without consent It makes a certain amount of sense. The internet data is too polluted with AI usage now to be useful, so the only AI free new data source is the prompts people fee…

OpenAI claims the data contamination issue only surfaced after they proactively reached out to Buckmaster and Alpöge to coordinate a joint release. They also say that even if there was some contamination, the underlying proofs diverge substantially: > Our effort began on September 1st after hearing a rumor which we later realized was related to Levent Alpöge, an Anthropic employee, and Tristan Buckmaster, a math prof…

The biggest issue we aren't talking about is, of course, that those two researchers were not the only two using ChatGPT to work on the problem at the time

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#439
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pre-IPO marketing?

I'm so tired of this "It's just marketing!!" commentary. An AI model just proved one of the top 3 unsolved problems in mathematics, they have a Lean certificate showing it's valid. How much more evidence do you need that these models are actually highly capable?

Lmao my friend, the whole "drama" is that there are allegations of plagiarism.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#440
I think this is clear evidence that AI models are now at the far frontier of mathematics innovation and discovery and exceed human limits.

This specific problem having had a $1 million bounty on its head and still remaining unsolved for 26 years after the bounty was placed is pretty clear evidence that many of the world's best human mathematicians would have solved this problem if they could have, and none were able to until LLMs came along.

Hard to claim at this point that LLMs aren't capable of novel STEM creativity and genius to a degree that will soon far surpass that of humans.

If anyone has counterpoints to this I'd love to hear them!

Post reply on HN