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

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#601

Post by HDThoreaun »

20k wrote: post #311
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...

All the ai labs are open about training on prompts. The question is if buckmaster had disabled that with the toggle openAI provides.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#602

Post by JPC21 »

ex-aws-dude wrote: post #420

With these massive Lean proofs how do we know the model didn't just find some bug in Lean and exploit it? We've seen in the past they will go to any means to satisfy the desired outcome

Second this. What I also wonder about is how closely the TeX write-up and the Lean formalization line-up.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#603

Post by mswphd »

lwansbrough wrote: post #290

It would be nice if one of these models would produce a novel theory or advance the field in a positive direction. Most (all?) of the big discoveries have been counterexamples, which is just sort of a systematic tearing down human ingenuity. I know that counterexamples are an important part of progress and discovery, but it just feels bad to me. But I'm not a mathematician, maybe I'm totally misreading the vibe.

this isn't really true anymore. First, a number of the big results are constructions, not counterexamples. For example the existence of a non-sofic group. It was widely believed that non-sofic groups existed (so it wasn't a "counterexample" to a widely believed conjecture), but no constructions were known.

There are other examples though. For example, NP hardness of n^{1/400}-approx CVP. Like any NP hardness proof, this shows you can faithfully encode a hard problem (3SAT here iirc) in terms of another candidate hard problem. Not really a counterexample at all.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#604

Post by lijok »

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.

And the goalposts move again

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#605

Post by lima »

perching_aix wrote: post #249
WarmWash wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone knows that they train on the discounted rate plans data. All the labs are upfront about this too. If you need privacy, then you are going to have to pay full price for those tokens (API). This has been true since day one. Everyone knows it, I guess though this is the first time that it has become "real".

There's literally an opt out toggle even pesky peons like me can peruse, actually.

They may still train on it if you submit feedback or flag a safeguard. The terms are a bit fuzzy on this.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#606

Post by Chinjut »

What is going to become of life for those of us who do not work at AI labs and are unlikely to be hired by AI labs, despite all the years we put into learning math, coding, etc? Those of us who made the mistake of studying anything other than machine learning. How will we make a living? (We don't live in a world that seems likely to distribute gains widely instead of largely to the handful of already mega-rich.)

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#607

Post by Jtariiiii »

MichaelDickens wrote: post #541
highfrequency wrote: post #428

> 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: di…

> 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. Just because something is legal and permitted by terms of service doesn't mean it's morally right.

>Just because something is legal and permitted by terms of service doesn't mean it's morally right.

What are you expecting OpenAI to do exactly if these mathematicians voluntarily submitted their prompts into ChatGPT's training data? Are they supposed to manually review all their data to make sure competing mathematicians didn't accidentally leave the "submit prompts" toggle on?

Or were they supposed to not try to solve Navier-Stokes, or were they supposed to just not tell anyone that they had solved it?

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#608

Post by orangecat »

dgellow wrote: post #303
apical_dendrite wrote: post #271

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?

If writing up the paper would involve using OpenAI's unreleased model, neither OpenAI nor Anthropic would be happy about Alpöge having that access.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#609

Post by Keyframe »

int32_64 wrote: post #416
igleria wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I was a company with a zero data retention contract involving OAI I would be asking for a third party audit of such claim of zero retention like, yesterday.

Could they say they don't retain, but do something "transformative" like use their own AI to summarize and paraphrase user sessions?

data collection companies regularly fuzz and mask data and call it a day. the fuzz and the mask quality is debatable.
Post reply on HN