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

661–670 of 862 posts

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#661

Post by spongebobstoes »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #649
spongebobstoes wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that is not related to the accusation that they literally stole Buckmaster's work, which seems baseless I don't agree with the oil claim analogy. this is knowledge, freely given to the world. not something hoarded by a corporation

> this is knowledge, freely given to the world Even if you’re starting from a position that credit for a discovery literally can’t be stolen, that still doesn’t resolve in OpenAI’s favor here.

it seems like OAI tried to share, but didn't want to share with an Ant employee. a bit childish, but understandable to want to avoid a headline "Anthropic researcher solves Millennium problem"

it seems like Buckmaster got one-upped and is upset. understandable, but I find their reaction childish as well

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#662

Post by esalman »

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”.

I work in catastrophe risk modeling and it's a multi billion dollar industry.

We often chat where the business might be heading in future. An uncomfortable scenario is what if a frontier tech company decides to offer our customers the same products that we do.

There's a lot of pressure on AI adoption so the company has partnered with various tech companies to build intelligent systems on top of proprietary data and mathematical models.

If OpenAI is indeed using customer data to train their models to win a $1m prize, then it throws a giant IP question at the partnerships that affects multi billion dollar businesses.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#663

Post by rochansinha »

People here do not seem to be considering the second-order effects of these series of events. No academic institution or enterprise will trust OpenAI, Anthropic or any other non-local AI model with their core IP. There will be severe restrictions on what employees at these companies/institutions can share with AI services even from their personal accounts. (Or I am just overthinking it)

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#664

Post by willsmith72 »

geraneum wrote: post #660
zeven7 wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Shouldn’t this very capable model they’ve developed be able to identify promising problems? That’s what I’d expect from how the model is being presented and advertised.

i've seen no sign of that

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#666

Post by sigmoid10 »

geraneum wrote: post #660
zeven7 wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Shouldn’t this very capable model they’ve developed be able to identify promising problems? That’s what I’d expect from how the model is being presented and advertised.

That's more or less what they did according to their announcement. They fired it at a whole bunch of high end math problems and merely concentrated all efforts on one after it made some promising progress.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#667

Post by Tanjreeve »

JbMaj9 wrote: post #651
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”.

A mathematician working for the competitor, solving a math problem using our model? Isn’t that the best marketing possible?

If the work done is just "we made other people's work searchable without their consent" it's not quite the same as what they're implying in the marketing of "our model solved this problem".

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#668

Post by johnnienaked »

lalalanananana wrote: post #590
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”.

Here's a wake up call for everyone sending all of their ip to openai and anthropic. Especially in verticals they intend to dominate. Lol at all the biotech companies all in on Claude and paying millions in fdes creating huge lapses in security as they go.

It's too late. Sub models are deployed at every major organization in the United States and all it will take is turning off the option to improve the model for them to train directly on your own personal workflow, which CEOs will greedily eat up instantly if they can reduce labor costs. If they can brute force N-S, automating your finance or SWE job will be trivial. GG to most jobs connected to a computer in the next 5 years.

BTW, this was always the plan from day 1. You will pour all your training and experience into training the model and receive a pink slip as compensation.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#669

Post by sk4rekr0w »

rochansinha wrote: post #663

People here do not seem to be considering the second-order effects of these series of events. No academic institution or enterprise will trust OpenAI, Anthropic or any other non-local AI model with their core IP. There will be severe restrictions on what employees at these companies/institutions can share with AI services even from their personal accounts. (Or I am just overthinking it)

You are just overthinking it. This place is now a Claude blog and anti OpenAI site.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#670

Post by johnnienaked »

dudeinjapan wrote: post #589
davesque wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly this whole thing is so fucking weird. I feel like there's an argument that absolutely no one involved in the final crossing of the finish line to the proof actually did any work (other than just intelligently directing an LLM) and deserves any credit. As the author of this doc mentions, the mathematicians who did the actual work that led to the formulation of this approach (without the use of LLMs; just good…

Sounds like the plot for Good Will Hunting 2.

Token Bill Hunting
Post reply on HN