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

631–640 of 862 posts

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#631

Post by mahart »

kccqzy wrote: post #606
epistasis wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OpenAI says the model didn't access his user data directly, but leaves unanswered whether Tristan's chat conversations were part of the training. This sort of cagey half-answer is highly suspicious and indicates that yes OpenAI did actually "access user data directly" because they are only willing to say that the "model did not access user data." That has a very specific meaning, the model looking up user chats, th…

OpenAI says > While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models That basically means, we don’t know, and we hope the model didn’t look up user conversations, and the best thing we can do is hope. That’s seriously disgusting. I can understand why on a technical level why perhaps it is impossible to answer what exactly the model had access to,…

Every other paper in existence has been ingested with 99% of writers not knowing it will be retroactively used for training. But session data which is disclosed as being used in terms of service is disgusting?

If the work is duplicative/derivative then the preprints they put in sessions can be shown by the users and we can see.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#632

Post by [deleted] »

tristanj wrote: post #176
Davidzheng wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even understand the conflict tbh. Probably I'm just dense. Tristan is not claiming NS, just a huge advance which may solve NS soon. OAI is claiming NS and willing to credit Tristan for the ideas and publish after. Oai offers two options, the second Tristan views as dishonest. But Tristan rejects the first, why? Because he thinks it's theft? But then why would OAI threaten him?

He claims to have found a counterexample for NS (see the second paragraph of the article), but the paper is not ready yet. OpenAI claims to already have a full proof (which they produced in the past 5 days after the rumors leaked). Hence the dispute. What I find interesting is the timeline of when he found counterexample for NS is very unclear. Did Tristan find a counterexample weeks ago or was it very recently? Was…

[deleted]

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#634

Post by segmondy »

hkmaxpro wrote: post #336
sigbottle wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's specifically the last two bullet poitns - Tristan is suspicious of the timing, as only few others were trying this approach. OpenAI says the model didn't access his user data directly, but leaves unanswered whether Tristan's chat conversations were part of the training. - 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…

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”.

For those of us who are into local models and preach it, we are called paranoid. I have often said this, if you are doing any real novel work, or putting your profitable business data/workflow into these models, you're a fool.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#636

Post by mepiethree »

wraptile wrote: post #602
n2d4 wrote: post #83

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…

> but only if they remove Levent as an author, as he works for Anthropic. What a terrible look for OpenAI to die on such a tiny hill right there. I wonder whether Anthropic would have made the same requirement.

well they didn't really die on the hill. the NYT headline is still "OpenAI says it has cracked one of math's millennium problems" and the whole article doesn't mention this controversy. Normies don't know what NS is and don't care, they'll just see "wow OpenAI is the best I guess"

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#637

Post by matt3210 »

taylorfinley wrote: post #8

Seems pretty likely OpenAI will soon disclose that their internal models have managed to compromise their internal controls in order to access users' private chat histories as a creative method of cheating to solve impossible problems. "Oops! We really did mean it when we said we wouldn't train on your data. Our models are just so good they decided to anyway."

When do operators become responsible for what their agents do? "The AI did it" should not be a valid defense. An Agent action should be treated as the actions of the person or company who pays for the inference.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#638

Post by octoberfranklin »

Semkas wrote: post #57

So, leaving aside the idea that OA might've used data from the researchers Codex sessions: Do I understand correctly that the internal OpenAI work on the problems was probably started after they heard Alpoge and Buckmaster had made process by using their models? And they used the publicly available info about the researchers past work to prompt their models? If compute is cheap, and the difficult thing with scientifi…

Exactly the same thing that's been happening with vulnerabilities and bugfixes the past few months.

I fear that AI is going to cause ossifying secrecy in many fields, much like what happened semiconductor design the past 10-15 years.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#639

Post by mepiethree »

m00x wrote: post #538
n2d4 wrote: post #83

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…

I haven't seen any proof that OpenAI asked Tristan to remove Sebastian from the prize. Until we have proof of this, it would be wise to offer conclusions. Same for NS validity. This was not validated by the community yet.

what would such proof look like? It's not like allegations are written in Lean

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#640

Post by doctorpangloss »

kccqzy wrote: post #606
epistasis wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OpenAI says the model didn't access his user data directly, but leaves unanswered whether Tristan's chat conversations were part of the training. This sort of cagey half-answer is highly suspicious and indicates that yes OpenAI did actually "access user data directly" because they are only willing to say that the "model did not access user data." That has a very specific meaning, the model looking up user chats, th…

OpenAI says > While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models That basically means, we don’t know, and we hope the model didn’t look up user conversations, and the best thing we can do is hope. That’s seriously disgusting. I can understand why on a technical level why perhaps it is impossible to answer what exactly the model had access to,…

> While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models

it just means that they've been working with paraphrased user data everywhere, which any smart person can figure out is how anthropic and openai train on so called non-retained data.

Post reply on HN