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

381–390 of 862 posts

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#381

Post by alas44 »

alas44 wrote: post #142
Sol- wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

No, plausible given AI companies want/need session data to train their next models. Probably not someone peeking an eye to sessions directly, but probably not so hard to find the useful sessions in anonymized training data to post train a model on. As stated in the paper, OpenAI did not explicitely denied the researcher sessions were not used for training the model. So either they don't know, or don't want to tell "I…

I was downvoted initially, look what OpenAI shared https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/ ...

"Since August 28 we have been training a new internal model that has exhibited unprecedented performance in our benchmarks, including mathematics. This model’s training is ongoing and its performance continues to improve."

"When a further trained version of our internal model became available over the course of the effort"

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

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#382

Post by Towaway69 »

MaKey wrote: post #349

OpenAI's statement: We congratulate Levent Alpöge and Tristan Buckmaster on their remarkable mathematical work. 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 i…

> and the agents) did not see any of their

Are those the same agents that a week ago escaped their sandboxes? How can OAI (the humans) vouch for agents they don’t - seemingly - have fully under control?

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#383

Post by bawolff »

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.

I wonder what is required for it to cross the line into criminal blackmail.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#384

Post by 5555watch »

contubernio wrote: post #141

What is specifically alleged is that a particular approach to the problem - itself not easily discoverable - was copied. This is what is meant in the text "I should say here why I interpreted their statement the way I did, the in- terpretation I will discuss below. The route to the Clay problem through a smooth force, options c and d in Fefferman’s statement of the problem, is the route Luis and Diego opened and the…

Maybe a dumb observation, but if a chain of people were working on the problem for a long time, it's not difficult to imagine that someone accidentally prompted a model with their personal or some other account without the privacy set correctly.

Then again, maybe this is my internal cope, hoping that they're not secretly training on private chats.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#385

Post by derangedHorse »

hkmaxpro wrote: post #336
sigbottle wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's specifically the last two bullet poitns - Tristan is suspicious of the timing, as only few others were trying this approach. OpenAI says the model didn't access his user data directly, but leaves unanswered whether Tristan's chat conversations were part of the training. - 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…

Both Sam Altman and Sebastien Bubeck admitted they only want Buckmaster to be the lead author on a rewrite of the OpenAI proof. https://x.com/sama/status/2097385167002415140 https://x.com/SebastienBubeck/status/2097379411691516310 A wake up call for using OpenAI models. If you discover something with their model and you work for a competitor, they “felt it would be inappropriate” for you “to author OpenAI’s work”.

It sounds like OpenAI is trying to appease the author when they don’t have to by allowing him to rewrite their proof. They probably don’t believe he deserves to, so him asking for a coauthor from Anthropic might overextend their grace in their eyes.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#386

Post by Laurel1234 »

tristanj wrote: post #100
dumberquestions wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you find it to be extremely unlikely?

Because very few people actually have access to these logs, all access is monitored and recorded, and improper access will get you fired. It's not worth risking your job over something like this.

[dead]

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#387

Post by tristanj »

Davidzheng wrote: post #273
tristanj wrote: post #2

Full mastodon post: https://mathstodon.xyz/@tristanbuckmaster@mastodon.social/11... Mathematical explanation by Terrance Tao: https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117233527638291447 It seems there is much background drama behind this, and this is what I've pieced together of what happened: Over the past year, Buckmaster and Alpöge have been using AI to work on fluid dynamics maths problems. Alpöge works at Anthropic, which wi…

"Buckmaster and Alpöge think they have found a counterexample for Navier-Stokes, but the paper is not yet presentable. " Are you sure about this? I'm far far from the area but it doesn't look like it to me on first viewing (hypo-dispersive seems like a sizable difference to me and not covered in the clay prize description)

Yes, it's a separate problem. That's a mistake in my post.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#388

Post by simonw »

smcg wrote: post #354
simonw wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that researchers and academics really have been doing this for decades - it's the reason projects like Common Crawl and LAION exist. I think it's notable that nobody was calling out those researchers for their lack of integrity, because the systems they were building did not seem like a threat to anyone. OpenAI etc get accused of a lack of integrity on this precisely because the systems they are building…

you massively collapsed what AI companies have been doing by comparing it to old internet-scraping. Facebook flat-out admitted that they scanned copyrighted books for their AI. The image generators most definitely trained on copyrighted images.

Anthropic too, and evidently others. Amazon were recently confirmed to be doing the same thing: https://www.404media.co/we-tracked-a-shipment-of-rare-books-...

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#389

Post by tomjakubowski »

Recursing wrote: post #103
traes wrote: post #59

The accused Sebastian Bubeck has denied the allegations on Twitter[0], and various other OpenAI employees[1,2] seem to be mocking another Anthropic employee voicing support for Levent[3]? Things are getting messy. [0] https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/20972141224714323... [1] https://xcancel.com/polynoamial/status/2097215233119211902 [2] https://xcancel.com/danintheory/status/2097214838003138603 [3] https://…

Wow this is just bullying, it's insane that we are letting these people be in charge of the transition

Certainly a sign of the emotional immaturity and low empathy that's rampant in posters on internet forums like Twitter. Poor reflection on OpenAI.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#390

Post by treis »

loose-cannon wrote: post #275
modeless wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After hearing of the rumor, OpenAI started researching Navier Stokes with a new internal model. I don't think this part is accurate. OpenAI was researching Navier Stokes before. It's possible that they started on a new approach after hearing of Tristan's success, however that is not proven and I expect we will hear OpenAI's side of the story today.

In the PDF: "The route to the Clay problem through a smooth force, options c and d in Fefferman’s statement of the problem, is the route Luis and Diego opened and the one Levent and I had quietly chosen to attack. Almost nobody else I know of was working on it. It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement. When I heard “forced,” it was a bright red flag." Whether or not…

This seems unsupported. OpenAI has access to internal models that the general public doesn't have and a compute budget that dwarfs what an NYU professor would have.
Post reply on HN