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

401–410 of 862 posts

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#401

Post by pelorat »

mishellaneous wrote: post #145
tristanj wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a stretch. The Luis and Diego paper was published in 2023 and is included in every frontier model's training dataset. An AI model could independently choose the same path route as Luis and Diego, without access to Buckmaster and Alpöge’s work. And the article states "an insane amount of compute had been used," which implies OpenAI brute-forced their way to a solution. I.e. they searched for every paper publish…

> An AI model could independently choose the same path route as Luis and Diego, without access to Buckmaster and Alpöge’s work. the post you were replying to quotes Buckmaster specifically denying this: "It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement." > And the article states "an insane amount of compute had been used," which implies OpenAI brute-forced their way to a so…

Well, no one arrived in this direction, because no one was sitting and prompting a model. It was 10000 agents working 24/7 for several days, trying millions of different directions.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#402

Post by red_green_yell »

If you're smart enough to solve this Navier-Stokes problem, you're smart enough to read a TOS and recognize that OAI is a highly untrustworthy company. Putting cutting edge research that could lead to a $1M prize into a cloud LLM with a TOS that allows training on your chats is really just asking for it.

Given Tristan doesn't explicitly say he was using the API, and given he doesn't mention anything about the API TOS (which disallows training on chats) in his call with OAI, it's highly likely Tristan was using the consumer OAI product (whose TOS allows training on chats).

This is unethical behavior from OAI. And it is 100% consistent with their long and public history of unethical behavior, so nobody should be surprised.

The only thing interesting I see here is OAI PR dilemma. If they claim the prize they get the blowback we're seeing in this thread and all over the web right now. But most people don't follow AI closely and shut off their brains when they see "Navier-Stokes", so 90% potential investors (the only people OAI really care about) probably only see the headline "OAI solves famous hard math problem" and think "OAI models are really smart, better invest before they take all the jobs." If they don't claim the prize, then maybe they let Anthropic their mortal enemy claim it. Anthropic is already IPOing first. Can't let that happen.

Yeah as I write this there it's clear there is no dilemma. For a company whose secret motto is "do be evil" this is a super easy discussion.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#403

Post by mswphd »

treis wrote: post #390
loose-cannon wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it's very possible they only had to use the massive compute budget because they were trying to plagiarize his work before he published it though, e.g. autonomously do things in ~7 days what he had likely been thinking about for ~1 year.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#404

Post by mswphd »

sdenton4 wrote: post #368
Davidzheng wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

they're using a new model trained since the prompts happened. They are not denying the other group's solution may have been in their model weights, despite it being unreleased.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#409

Post by skavi »

red_green_yell wrote: post #402

If you're smart enough to solve this Navier-Stokes problem, you're smart enough to read a TOS and recognize that OAI is a highly untrustworthy company. Putting cutting edge research that could lead to a $1M prize into a cloud LLM with a TOS that allows training on your chats is really just asking for it. Given Tristan doesn't explicitly say he was using the API, and given he doesn't mention anything about the API TOS…

not really your point, but "If you're smart enough to solve this Navier-Stokes problem, you're smart enough to read a TOS" isn't really true. people are smart in very different ways.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#410

Post by ignoramous »

dgellow wrote: post #375
magicalist wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If this is true he should release the actual emails these were statements while on a call, and at least the career comment Bubeck has admitted to while doing damage control ("I deeply apologize for this extremely poor choice of words, it is the opposite of what I was trying to convey. (I should say that I retracted them on the spot by the way.)"[1]). [1] https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/20973794116915163.…

What a horrible response from Bubeck. How did he think that would make him and OpenAI look good to tweet that?

If we're allowed to arm-chair judge harshly: It isn't uncommon for those (anybody) on the cusp of "greatness" to be delusional when challenged: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-to-know-about-main-c...
Post reply on HN