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

Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

cims.nyu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 862 posts

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#361

Post by az226 »

Readerium wrote: post #242
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's absolutely right. Why the downvotes? If OpenAI are using but not acknowledging the work of others that's plagiarism. If they don't know for sure, but aren't performing due dilligence to make sure they aren't, that's also plagiarism.

It's not as simple. All our chats are being used by both labs for their future product (unless signed by ZDR). Where should the acknowledgement begin? Who should be acknowledged? The whole world? All the 2B users of AI? If I know person A is working on problem B. I am free to work on problem B too. Why should person A be limited to working on it.

Finding Codex session data in the training set that you tie back to these two researchers is like an hour-long task.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#362

Post by water-drummer »

margorczynski wrote: post #112
JuniperMesos wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be pretty wild if this will turn out to be what had actually happened.

And probably a strong signal that it's time to shut the whole thing down. Globally.

Or not secure your data like a total idiot while leaving the keys on the porch

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#363

Post by ex-aws-dude »

b89kim wrote: post #232

- Tristan and his co-author (Harvard/Anthropic) developed a theoretical framework and validated it using Codex and Claude. - OpenAI did related research around similar timeframe. - Tristan claimed OpenAI offered a proposal that included dropping the Anthropic-affiliated co-author. - Sebastian (a prominent OpenAI researcher involved) denied these claims. - Tristan have no concrete evidence that OpenAI accessed their s…

> Tristan have no concrete evidence that OpenAI accessed their session.

Its not about accessing the session, its whether the session ended up in the training run for the next version of the model

That's normal practice for these models and it seems like that was the case since OAI added a disclaimer

Obviously they can't causally prove it helped though since these models are incomprehensible

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#364

Post by naniel »

OpenAI's release explicitly says No. But then also caveats that with "we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products" impacted things. What's most striking to me, and what may or may not be true, is the "we cannot rule out" bit.

"We (the researchers and the agents) did not see any of their work through any means until they released it publicly — in particular, no specific user data was accessed in order to solve this problem. While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models . However, our proofs differ significantly and even the precise results proved are different in the Euler case (forced vs unforced)." https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/

NOTE: there are a couple duped threads around this. i replied on a different one first before seeing this one

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#365

Post by sensanaty »

Sol- wrote: post #131
mayakacz wrote: post #12

I'm not one to comment often but this really pisses me off. OpenAI looked at user data, stole world class researchers' work, and then tried to threaten those researchers to do what would make their corporation profit (which they would anyways!). Imagine you have been working on a terribly difficult math problem for a decade. This is a result you have spent years on, and what you will likely be remembered for. And to…

> OpenAI looked at user data, stole world class researchers' work This doesn't seem to be clear and is very implausible for a large company. Be as cynical as you want, but a normal researcher will simply not have access rights to this data, which will be siloed away somewhere else. It might very well be somewhat unfair to catch wind of a promising approach and then try to frontrun them by throwing compute at the prob…

If it's siloed the same way the HF bots were, that doesn't exactly bode well. I'd be amazed if there weren't some big companies sending a fleet of lawyers at OpenAI's ZRPs after this news

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#366

Post by az226 »

piker wrote: post #352
MetroWind wrote: post #321

Bubeck's statement https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/20973794116915163...

Reads sincere until I get here: "(a) We began working on the Millennium problems due to viral twitter rumors that Anthropic had resolved 2 Millenium problems. Our aim was to see whether our system was also capable of this impressive feat, especially given our excitement regarding the large recent capability increases of our internal model detailed in our blog post." Where his tone is obviously corporate speak. "We he…

If they wanted to see how their model’s stacked up, they might burn $10k in tokens. They ran 120 billion output tokens costing millions of dollars.

That is what you would do if you wanted to beat someone to the punch.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#367

Post by reasonableklout »

Semkas wrote: post #81
AJRF wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> leaving aside the idea that OA might've used data from the researchers Codex sessions Why leave that aside? That is _the_ story. If a Chinese research lab did this we'd call it espionage.

But there's a bunch of people already in this thread calling that stuff unfounded speculation (which I disagree with), and my point is that even if that specific thing isn't true, OA's behavior here is obviously awful. If they're going to try to beat researchers to discoveries like this it disincentives researchers to talk about their progress publicly, and basically breaks the ecosystem of scientific cooperation / d…

Yep. The most uncharitable view of this might be: they stole the work of researchers to build their models, and now they're using said models to steal the proceeds of future work, too.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#368

Post by sdenton4 »

Davidzheng wrote: post #334
lukewarm707 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my reading was that openai did not deny plagiarising the approach from their prompts. openai then tried to effectively bribe buckmaster with a shared citation, whilst dropping his co-author who works for anthropic. after buckmaster refused, openai tried to threaten him.

Oai denies looking at prompts but doesn't deny training on them.

At this point who knows? Maybe the agents got into the user data while no one was looking.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#369

Post by augment_me »

mti wrote: post #338
bawolff wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OpenAI says they would partially credit Tristan for the $1,000,000 discovery (even though Tristan did not solve the $1,000,000 problem) — but only if they remove Levent as an author, as he works for Anthropic well that sounds like an asshole move.

In a serious discipline like mathematics, this isn't just an asshole move, but a career-ending level of academic misconduct.

*In the old discipline of mathematics.

We are in new times, where capital and compute decides mathematics, so we don't give a shit anymore

Post reply on HN