On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem • Hacker News Board

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#651

Post by TZubiri » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 9:08 PM UTC

Jonasori wrote: post #19

the context here is super important, for those who haven't seen it yet. OAI maybe just trained on a real researchers solution and then celebrated having scored the goal unassisted save for the brief commentary at the bottom of this blog post. Here's the other side. https://x.com/rynorhn/status/2097223532438487463

>maybe

Maybe that happened. What we know for sure is that this is definitely how ChatGPT works to the point where the possibility of this happening exists at all.

Don't get distracted by what may have happened, focus on the facts that we know, ChatGPT trains on user conversations, if you use ChatGPT to create something of value, you are not using the one true ring.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#652

Post by technotony » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 9:08 PM UTC

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #599

user19282 wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no evidence that Anthropic did it first.

Yes there is - that OpenAI PR says that it was Levent Alpöge, an Anthropic employee, and Tristan Buckmaster, a math professor at NYU.

They appear to have solved sub-problems (Euler problem) not this one...

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#653

Post by vrganj » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 9:08 PM UTC

Chinjut wrote: post #605

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.)

The only way forward that is not large-scale misery is a fundamental reorganization of our socioeconomic system.

I talked about this at some length here, including a diagnosis of the structural issue we're facing as well as a path forward: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49461333

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#654

Post by paxys » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 9:08 PM UTC

dfdydx wrote: post #457

pfisch wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they could then it wouldn't be de-identified data...

Well you could search for elements similar to the proof / problem in the training data, even if it's de-identified, right? OpenAI can probably do better than Ctrl-f "Navier Stokes".

There are probably thousands of serious academics taking a crack at millennium problems using AI every day. All those attempts are in the training data. And in fact the two researchers benefited from those attempts as well.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#655

Post by nozzlegear » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 9:09 PM UTC

onidj wrote: post #311

echelon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is going to be dramatic in so many different ways. - First off, to reiterate, WOW. - Second of all, when does this end? Are we at the dawn of the singularity now? - People are saying OpenAI "stole" this from the work of an OpenAI user. If so, that's pretty fucked - how can we trust them? - Time to think about retiring from any knowledge work or business? This could be winner-take-all where a leading lab can butt…

>- Do "normies" even know what's happening? Absolutely not. Even to a lot of techy/nerdy people it's still just a chatbot that they sometimes use to help them at work. Even on here people will do whatever they can to downplay. The lack of fucks given is staggering.

How many fucks should be given, in your estimation?

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#656

Post by tehmillhouse » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 9:09 PM UTC

Fuck OpenAI. Fuck everyone who works there. Like seriously, to all the people who gift their life's work to this monstrosity, do you actually think something good will come of any of this?

Not in a happy-go-lucky "if we just ignore the problem of politics and resource allocation for a bit" world, but in ours. Do y'all really think this will make the world a better place?

Maybe stop building the Torment Nexus, you numbskulls.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#657

Post by HDThoreaun » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 9:09 PM UTC

20k wrote: post #620

HDThoreaun wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That does not make it ethical

Isnt the entire history of academic progress iterating on work that other academics shared with you? Obviously this situation is spicy but openAI cited their work no?

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#658

Post by orangecat » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 9:10 PM UTC

20k wrote: post #310

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...

What is that supposed to prove? OpenAI is almost always going to be training new models.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#659

Post by brettdev » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 9:10 PM UTC

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…

There are lots of startups creating labs that can be managed e2e by agents. That will connect reasoning to the physical world and dramatically speed up the plan, experiment, reflect loop beyond what humans currently do in science R&D.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#660

Post by semi-extrinsic » Tue, Sep 08, 2026, 9:10 PM UTC

thangalin wrote: post #463

inkysigma wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be quite clear, the solution to the _Navier Stokes problem_ is one in which you get a finite time blow up (i.e. infinite pressure). This is more meant to suggest that Navier Stokes is unphysical in some way which is not necessarily unexpected. There's unlikely to be any engineering applications since even if the solution can be approximated, you still need to set up the initial conditions but at that point you can…

The proof of finite-time singularity may impact both fluid dynamics models (CFD) and AI reasoning models. Under specific conditions, Navier–Stokes equations allow velocity to grow infinitely, causing the continuum fluid assumption to break down. Knowing the exact mathematical breakdown mechanisms helps developers improve adaptive mesh refinement and sub-grid scale models around high-vorticity regions (like vortex str…

> Knowing the exact mathematical breakdown mechanisms helps developers improve adaptive mesh refinement and sub-grid scale models around high-vorticity regions (like vortex stretching and turbulent shear layers).

This is 100% wrong and reads like copy paste of AI slop.

Any simulation which uses sub-grid scale models is already solving a different PDE than the actual Navier-Stokes considered in the Millenium problem, and that PDE is guaranteed to have different properties. Full stop.

And to claim this is somehow connected to AMR methods is an example of the kind of pseudoscientific statement Wolfgang Pauli would have called "not even wrong".