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

621–630 of 1001 posts

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#621

Post by tedsanders »

Imnimo wrote: post #252
tedsanders wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that was the allegation last night. I work at OpenAI, though not on the team that did this, and my understanding is: - we decided to ask our model for Millenium problem solutions because of two reasons: (a) our new model was looking incredibly good and (b) we heard rumors that some Millenium problems had been solved and were curious if our models could solve them (the goal here was not to scoop any particular in…

>we did not read any private chats The question I am interested in is not "did we read private chats", but "was this new model trained using any of Tristan and Levent's chats, regardless of whether they were marked private". Can you comment on that?

If they opted out of training, then we definitely did not train on them.

If they did not opt out, then I don't personally know if training signals came from their chats, and I don't think we'd be able to tell without their cooperation in identifying them. And even if signals were trained on in some manner, I highly doubt it made a difference to a problem as challenging as the NS proof.

Reasons for my doubt:

- I know most of our training recipes

- Our model's proof is very different from theirs

- The proof took a tremendous amount of tokens to derive (it wasn't a recall/lookup type question)

- This unreleased model has beastly performance on many unsolved math problems, not just the Euler solution

I acknowledge that this requires trust, and if you think we'd lie shamelessly about this stuff, then nothing we say can really help our case here.

Reminds me a bit of the Frontier Math fiasco, where people accused us of training on the eval set (we didn't), but it's hard to convince someone if they think you're lying.

If you're convinced we lie and cheat, then nothing I say may help. But if you're not sure, then hopefully providing my perspective is helpful.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#622

Post by jsw97 »

user43928 wrote: post #565
20k wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't a priority dispute, the more concerning allegation is that OpenAI may be training their models on prompts that mathematicians were using to solve this problem, and then surprise surprise OpenAI were able to replicate that work in their latest model What we're really looking at is seemingly a massive plagiarism scandal, which especially brings a lot of the past results into question If OpenAI is training mode…

All that I have seen OpenAI employees "admit" is that if you press the Thumbs up button on a response, this can be used as a signal for training. That's it. The rest appears to be wild speculation.

Yeah this is a land mine. Even if you opt out of them training on your conversations, giving “feedback on a new version” or answering “how are we doing” or whatever can slurp up all relevant context, which if you think about it can probably be construed to include memories, into the belly of their flying saucer. At least the last time I checked their terms.

Never ever touch those requests. If you get a side by side comparison just resend the prompt.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#623

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

sobellian wrote: post #590
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not my interpretation - that is literally what OpenAI say in that press release.

The "steal their thunder" is interpretation. What I'm saying is that you believe they solved NS on a lark to bully some other researchers, and that this is not impressive?

What's impressive for a human and for an AI are two different things.

Magnus Carlson had a peak ELO rating of almost 2900.

Would you be impressed with someone with an ELO of 3700?

Would you still be impressed if I told you it was Stockfish?

OpenAI didn't go looking for a tough-for-an-AI problem to solve - they went looking for one that looked like it was easy since it they had heard it had already been solved.

Do you find this impressive?

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#624

Post by cyclopeanutopia »

tristanj wrote: post #587
thomascountz wrote: post #570

At all times we maintained the same strict safeguards that we apply to all our frontier model evaluations, including monitoring and isolation. Maybe just don't mention that bit, OpenAI.

They have to, otherwise people will accuse the OpenAI model of hacking into people's chat logs and stealing the data there. Which is a claim people are already making.

But their standards are so low - given the recent incidents - that it doesn't mean much. :)

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#625

Post by cute_boi »

nemomarx wrote: post #612
Chinjut wrote: post #603

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.)

If you think it'll keep improving from here, probably we all have to do some kind of physical labor that isn't profitable to automate. Small batch manufacturing is alright, service work, etc. If you think it'll slow down, you can do some of the same stuff you're doing now for lower pay while supervising an AI, maybe?

>Once a robot can do everything an IQ 80 human can do, only better and cheaper, there will be no reason to employ IQ 80 humans. Once a robot can do everything an IQ 120 human can do, only better and cheaper, there will be no reason to employ IQ 120 humans. Once a robot can do everything an IQ 180 human can do, only better and cheaper, there will be no reason to employ humans at all, in the unlikely scenario that there are any left by that point. [1]

Current models are already very very capable. If it becomes cheap and very fast, i think it is game over.

[1] https://www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/Meditations-On-Moloch

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#626

Post by [deleted] »

raincole wrote: post #144
applicative wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the end of OpenAI

This will be remembered as one of the biggest milestones in AI progress. The drama around it will at best be a footnote, just like hardly anyone caring about the drama around Poincare conjecture today.

[deleted]

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#628

Post by alde »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #390
hdivider wrote: post #112

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…

Most of high energy theoretical physics is very non-rigorous or even hand-wavy. I think AI isn’t there yet for such problems.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#629

Post by enraged_camel »

tedsanders wrote: post #236
contemporary343 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I was shown a prompt and told the internal research model had simply been given the problem statement. Levent had been told by Sebastien “very little human input” had been used. This turned out not to be true. Over the course of the call, as members of their team sent Sebastien corrections and details over their internal chat, it emerged that an entire team had been working on the problem, that this was one of a num…

All of those statements sound true, based on what I've heard. - "very little human" input feels ambiguous, and if someone spends a few days prompting a model to solve a super hairy problem requiring a 100-page proof, I can understand reasonable people interpreting that as both "very little" and "not very little" human input - it's all true that a team worked on this, a bunch of compute was burned, and the problem was…

>> I'm not sure how any of this provides evidence that OpenAI took any of their work.

Sorry, but the burden of proof lies in the other direction: OpenAI needs to definitively prove that their agents did not look at the existing work that was about to be published. Otherwise OpenAI simply stole the glory and the spotlight (and I'm being charitable here).

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#630

Post by m0rde »

Chinjut wrote: post #603

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.)

Do you just go around posting this comment? https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...>
Post reply on HN