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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#811

Post by hellohello2 »

traes wrote: post #544
jakevoytko wrote: post #3

For full context, here's the HN thread from the other side of the "Concurrent Work" section: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49605915 Unlike the vanilla read of the OpenAI press release, it is much more unfiltered and outlines some particularly aggressive behavior by specific OpenAI employees

Which seems to be entirely true by their own admission! [0] Both the comments about him risking his career and about Levent's authorship seem to have indeed occurred. > 2) I never ever asked for Levent to be removed from authorship of his own work (as indicated by my text). I was surprised to learn during the call with Tristan that they had only solved Euler and not Navier-Stokes; after learning this we brainstormed…

Hm. Looks like its possible everyone behaved terribly here unfortunately. :/

I remained impressed by ChatGPT however!

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#812

Post by abathologist »

hmate9 wrote: post #5
minimaxir wrote: post #2

> Across all attempted problems, the agents sent 4.9 million messages and used about 300 billion output tokens Don't even try to do the math on how much that would cost at normal API prices. And we don't even know how much more expensive this internal-only model would be!

Napkin math if we assume gpt 6 astra on max is >$15 million (just for output tokens) for those wondering.

This could fund 10 top income mathematicians for 8 years (based on https://careers.usnews.com/best-jobs/mathematician/salary ). Imagine what kinds of results we'd have to transform the foundations of science if we were giving brilliant minds this kind of funding to do nothing but research for most of decade....

Instead, we get slop proofs that are technically correct as PR stunts to enable corrupt kleptocrats, and most likely will drive research into culs-de-sac.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#813

Post by senordevnyc »

applicative wrote: post #91
tedsanders wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that was the allegation last night. I work at OpenAI, though not on the team that did this, and my understanding is: - we decided to ask our model for Millenium problem solutions because of two reasons: (a) our new model was looking incredibly good and (b) we heard rumors that some Millenium problems had been solved and were curious if our models could solve them (the goal here was not to scoop any particular in…

Its funny, it is uniquely with this one act that I have turned forever on OpenAI, which I hitherto defended up and down against nonsense charges. I dedicate my life to its complete destruction beginning today.

Wow, the origin of a supervillain! /s

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#814

Post by piloto_ciego »

arctic-true wrote: post #35

Buried under the drama is the fact that OpenAI is claiming that an internal model they’ve been training for less than two weeks is more than twice as capable in mathematics as Astra, which was only made public a week ago. Even if this improvement is limited to mathematics, that is an astounding feat.

And... they found this "solution" in 88 hours or so.

It's all gas no brakes now boys and girls. Hold on to your hats!

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#815

Post by piloto_ciego »

noir_lord wrote: post #781
chilmers wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication from their last couple of published articles[1][2] is that they think they’ve achieved “recursive self improvement”. [1] https://openai.com/index/research-acceleration-view-inside-o... [2] https://openai.com/index/an-alien-mind/

Recursive self improvement of their upcoming IPO value maybe. They are fluffy PR pieces otherwise.

How can you possible say this sort of thing in context of what looks like a millenium prize being solved.

I swear there's nobody blinder than those who won't see.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#816

Post by lukewarm707 »

moralestapia wrote: post #578
Imnimo wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we did not read any private chats The question I am interested in is not "did we read private chats", but "was this new model trained using any of Tristan and Levent's chats, regardless of whether they were marked private". Can you comment on that?

>Can you comment on that? No answer is also an answer. He's a human, like everybody else. Mostly a bunch of hungry animals looking to put bread in our mouths. It's rarely ever something a bit more sophisticated than that.

his choice to defend the indefensible.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#817

Post by dyauspitr »

TomJansen wrote: post #798
dyauspitr wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a lot of fun during Covid. I loved the working from home. The fact that most outdoor places were sparsely populated, jobs were plentiful and prices were low. Covid was awesome.

Yeah Covid was awesome, say that to the people who died from it, or who committed suicide because of the lockdown depression

Oh, pipe down, I’m talking about that 3 year period, not the disease. You can talk about things that happened during Covid without giving lip service to the people that died during it. If I mention SpaceX‘s first astronaut launch that happened during Covid, am I supposed to talk about the people that died during that period too?

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#818

Post by tim-kt »

joshka wrote: post #764
irthomasthomas wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the goal was not to scoop them, why did openai put a massive team on this, working weekends, only after they heard rumors of the solution?

I worked at OpenAI previously, but don't know any of the people involved in this. My guess was it was probably this was more a nerd snipe than any action from OpenAI that was a "massive team" being put on it. Literally someone looking at this and asking "I wonder if our models are good enough yet". It's easy to assume that having access to massive compute amounts means significant coordination, but this assumes that…

They said that a customer would have paid around 15 million for the required compute. I can't imagine that this was not a significant internal spending even with "free" tokens.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#819

Post by [deleted] »

piloto_ciego wrote: post #815
noir_lord wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recursive self improvement of their upcoming IPO value maybe. They are fluffy PR pieces otherwise.

How can you possible say this sort of thing in context of what looks like a millenium prize being solved. I swear there's nobody blinder than those who won't see.

[deleted]

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#820

Post by monk_grilla »

mellosouls wrote: post #775
intenex wrote: post #440

I think this is clear evidence that AI models are now at the far frontier of mathematics innovation and discovery and exceed human limits. This specific problem having had a $1 million bounty on its head and still remaining unsolved for 26 years after the bounty was placed is pretty clear evidence that many of the world's best human mathematicians would have solved this problem if they could have, and none were able…

Here you go: When you read the detail the compute they are throwing at it is incredible, tens of thousands of agents with different groups competing. It's not like a single Gauss as you imply, "just" many, many mathematicians working tirelessly in a completely ego-less way, guided by other agents and ultimately humans, built - allegedly - on recent human insights. Stunning, undoubtedly, but this is a "brilliant autis…

> this is a "brilliant autistic herd" result, not that of a singular mind.

I slightly disagree. A single LLM is equally 'mindless' as a herd of them. As anyone will tell you they "simply predict the most likely next token," yet, complex solutions to difficult problems arise from them.

Many people have said that the architecture of LLMs will need to change for true ASI. I think that the herd of tens of thousands of agents can be seen as one such potential architectural extension. Whether or not a herd or a single LLM is used for a result like this is irrelevant.

To be clear, I think the orchestration of thousands of LLMs in their current form, even with ever increasing intelligence, is not the form ASI will take. There is still a major architectural breakthrough to come, in my limited, ignorant opinion.

Post reply on HN