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

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#651

Post by tristanj »

closetheloopdev wrote: post #396

From my reading of the announcement: - There are at least two versions of a model more powerful than Astra at OpenAI at the moment. - The less capable version was used to solve the unforced Euler problem (while the one solved by Levent Alpöge and Tristan Buckmaster was forced Euler) with 100 agents. - The more improved version was used to solve Navier-Stokes, given the results of the unforced Euler problem from their…

The entire drama is that OpenAI sniped a Millennium Prize Problem from an Anthropic-affiliated research team who had been working on the problem for nearly a year. In just 5 days. I don't think that can be understated.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#652

Post by TZubiri »

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

#653

Post by technotony »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #600
user19282 wrote: post #577

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

#654

Post by vrganj »

Chinjut wrote: post #606

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

#655

Post by paxys »

dfdydx wrote: post #458
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

#656

Post by nozzlegear »

onidj wrote: post #312
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

#657

Post by tehmillhouse »

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

#658

Post by HDThoreaun »

20k wrote: post #621
HDThoreaun wrote: post #601

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

#659

Post by orangecat »

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...

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

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#660

Post by brettdev »

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.
Post reply on HN