491–500 of 862 posts
Can somebody explain: do singularities / blow-ups in solutions have any relation to physical phenomena in fluid dynamics or are they purely artifacts of how the N-S equations may not accurately describe what actually happens in the physical world?
Curious that this post isn't on the top page while OpenAI's puff piece is.
From OpenAI: > 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. The fact that this is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if we just let OpenAI steal any good idea they can get their hands on if they think it is profitable I have terrible news about how literally every leading AI model was trained
That doesn't make it fine. We should not excuse this behaviour just because its rampant already, especially when it comes to such a serious prize
This is well-known to anyone in the industry.
Drama/accusation summary: - Aug 15th: Tristan Buckmaster & Levent Alpöge make progress on a few important math problems, "finite-time blowup with smooth forcing for incompressible porous media, for Boussinesq, and for 3d incompressible Euler." - they do NOT have a proof for the $1,000,000 Millenium Prize problem. BUT, they do claim to have a proof for a similar (non-Millenium) Navier Stokes problem that could help le…
> OpenAI says they would partially credit Tristan for the $1,000,000 discovery (even though Tristan did not solve the $1,000,000 problem) — but only if they remove Levent as an author, as he works for Anthropic well that sounds like an asshole move.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this might be a red herring. All it takes is someone to get an inkling that someone is working on a new approach and seeing some success for OpenAI to fire the AI cannon at the problem. The community seems fairly small (from this outsider's point of view). The idea that the data made it into the training set and that's how the bot figured it out is definitely possible, but I would want to rule out the simpler…
Terence Tao said the same[1] > In fact, it is now the identification of a promising problem which is the scarce and precious resource. We have now seen that even the rumor of someone working on a problem can trigger a massive amount of AI-powered effort to flatten it before the original research project has time to reach its full potential. The incentives may now be pointing in the direction of no longer sharing any…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both Sam Altman and Sebastien Bubeck admitted they only want Buckmaster to be the lead author on a rewrite of the OpenAI proof. https://x.com/sama/status/2097385167002415140 https://x.com/SebastienBubeck/status/2097379411691516310 A wake up call for using OpenAI models. If you discover something with their model and you work for a competitor, they “felt it would be inappropriate” for you “to author OpenAI’s work”.
These responses seem to me to make it abundantly clear who's telling the truth here. I wonder who this fools. It would be extraordinarily easy to simply say, this model was not trained on your work, if that were the case. It's telling that they refuse to acknowledge the root issue here, and are attempting to shift the conversation elsewhere.
From OpenAI: > 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. The fact that this is…
> did Tristan opt out That “opt-out” thing is a dark pattern. It’s not a reliable and definitive way of protecting your data. Sometimes they flip on automatically when you accept a seemingly unrelated dialog box. Maybe you click it by mistake. You can’t take back what you’ve already shared. Also I don’t think it covers all the cases that they use your data. It’s really an opt-in button for voluntarily giving away you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This doesn't really make sense. You don't need massive amounts of computing to plagiarize something. The most nefarious explanation seems to be that they got wind it was possible to solve NS via LLMs and perhaps a small nudge in the right direction.
The open question was whether their LLM got the nudge in the right direction because it got access to the chat somehow (e.g. automated training that scraped his chat logs) or just a high level "Navier stokes can be solved through LLM". It sounds like the former may have happened although right now we just have an accusation and a weak denial.