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

521–530 of 862 posts

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#521

Post by b89kim »

golly_ned wrote: post #482
b89kim wrote: post #232

- Tristan and his co-author (Harvard/Anthropic) developed a theoretical framework and validated it using Codex and Claude. - OpenAI did related research around similar timeframe. - Tristan claimed OpenAI offered a proposal that included dropping the Anthropic-affiliated co-author. - Sebastian (a prominent OpenAI researcher involved) denied these claims. - Tristan have no concrete evidence that OpenAI accessed their s…

Sebastian did not deny those claims. He affirmed them, and apologized. It’s true that Tristan has no concrete evidence OAI accessed their session. It’s impossible for him to have that without OAI’s say so. Why are you framing things so pro OAI?

Sebastien denied most accusations and apologized only for inappropriate wording, providing his perspective.

- He insisted that OpenAI initiated research based solely on rumors and never accessed their Codex sessions.

- He mistakenly believed Tristan and Levent were solving the same problem in Anthropic.

- proposed two option. (1) Tristan becoming the lead author to revise OpenAI’s work, or (2) OpenAI providing internal model to support and bridge their research.

- Sebastien insisted there was no intention to alter authorship. He was simply uncomfortable sharing OpenAI’s work,model with an Anthropic researcher. Additionally, He believed Levent’s credit seemed limited as their work focused on Euler.

- complained that negotiations with Tristan and Levent were difficult

[1] https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/20973794116915163...

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#522

Post by shiandow »

14u2c wrote: post #441
shiandow wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he didn't opt out I'm not sure I'd agree that it was fair game. I'm pretty sure it would be considered plagiary amongst colleagues and it is a terrible precedent if we just let OpenAI steal any good idea they can get their hands on if they think it is profitable. You'd effectively sign away any and all rights to anything built with AI if OpenAI chooses to reengineer it before you.

Mining the chats for "good ideas" would be untenable, but that's a different situation than data ending up in a training set for a problem that OpenAI also happens to be independently working on. Still, I opt out (business plan), and I don't know why you wouldn't.

In what way are those two different? What makes the training data valuable if not to extract valuable information from it?

They sure as hell don't need it just to produce English.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#523

Post by reverius42 »

derangedHorse wrote: post #385
hkmaxpro wrote: post #336

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”.

It sounds like OpenAI is trying to appease the author when they don’t have to by allowing him to rewrite their proof. They probably don’t believe he deserves to, so him asking for a coauthor from Anthropic might overextend their grace in their eyes.

He's not "asking for a coauthor from Anthropic"; he already has a coauthor, who he's already been collaborating with, who happens to also be employed by Anthropic (but whose research in this area is not done as part of their employment at Anthropic).

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#524

Post by hellohello2 »

lukewarm707 wrote: post #328
Davidzheng wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Tristan doesn't even want to be credited for the millennium prize--does he? He wanted to be the first to solve it and got scooped (which ig is not a great look for OAI ethically but also not forbidden). And the only reading for her of asking to remove levent must be in light of this offer (to credit him for millennium prize) right? It's not like they can ask him to remove levent from the main papers without this…

my reading was that openai did not deny plagiarising the approach from their prompts. openai then tried to effectively bribe buckmaster with a shared citation, whilst dropping his co-author who works for anthropic. after buckmaster refused, openai tried to threaten him.

This definitely feels like the correct reading unless there is information we were not provided with. If the problem were unimportant, there would be no debate that this is not OK...

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#525

Post by calf »

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…

[dead]

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#526

Post by fn-mote »

nezi wrote: post #397
derangedHorse wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like OpenAI is trying to appease the author when they don’t have to by allowing him to rewrite their proof. They probably don’t believe he deserves to, so him asking for a coauthor from Anthropic might overextend their grace in their eyes.

Given that Tristan has said that the proofs that LLMs come up with are mostly "slop" and not up to the standard that human written papers achieve, maybe OpenAI needs an expert like him more than you think to get the result published?

Almost certainly the Lean proof needs to be decoded for humans and probably also made “human intelligible”.

Now maybe LLMs can also simplify arguments and make sense of them for humans, but we haven’t seen that yet (unaided).

(I haven’t looked at it, personally.)

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#527

Post by fn-mote »

ignoramous wrote: post #410
dgellow wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Who here is on the cusp of greatness??

Or thinks they are?

I really don’t understand which party you are referring to.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#528

Post by 405error »

instagraham wrote: post #49

When people worry about OpenAI stealing their chats and reproducing them elsewhere, I usually view the situation as unlikely - since chats are "trained" upon and not necessarily reproduced verbatim, you can assume that unless your chats depict a foundationally new and effective style of communication or ideation, there would be little need or use thereof of training on your chats. For eg: "Hey ChatGPT my name is X an…

It would not be difficult to write a pipeline to remove 99% of low quality posts, especially about specific subjects. It would be very easy to identify accounts as researchers based on their chat logs.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#529

Post by hellohello2 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #330
hn_acc1 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you been living under a rock? None of the big tech companies care one bit about user privacy in the US.

That's not an answer.

Any degree of tracking what people do is unprivate. Every single web interaction you perform is tracked. All LLM companies store all your conversations by default. Do you need more examples?

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#530

Post by fn-mote »

adastra22 wrote: post #473
dgellow wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Did we read the same tweet? It felt very forthright and level-headed to me. Not at all what I expected.

> Anthropic models had been used in their proof of Euler blowup; I therefore felt I could not consider Levent to be an independent academic

So using someone’s models makes someone who works for the competitor not “independent”? When their coauthor is? What does that even mean?

I almost stopped reading this extra long post entirely at that point.

This is not a good look in my book.

Post reply on HN