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

881–890 of 1001 posts

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#881

Post by JumpCrisscross »

tristanj wrote: post #757
biophysboy wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it unlikely?

Because the models are trained on hundreds of billions of user conversations, across more than a billion different humans. The conversations are anonymized and not easily traceable back to a specific user. It's unknowable and not possible to prove if any one specific conversation contained the insights for solving Navier–Stokes. We also don't know if the authors unintentionally provided data to OpenAI through alterna…

> It's unknowable

Knowability and likelihood are almost orthogonal here. If I commit a crime and perfectly destroy the evidence, my deed may be unknowable. That doesn’t make it more or less likely.

> not possible to prove if any one specific conversation contained the insights for solving Navier–Stokes

It may be. We haven’t seen the researchers’ transcripts. We don’t know what Buckmaster or his co-author uploaded to OpenAI or with what permissions (or if OpenAI actually respects those toggles).

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#882

Post by IshKebab »

swat535 wrote: post #680
biesnecker wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came here to say this, like... wow. I'm pretty sure at at least a few of the places I've worked that would be grounds for immediate termination.

They probably should have added the disclaimer: opinions are my own..

Yeah that isn't a magic get-out clause. I don't think I would have been immediately fired for this from anywhere I work at, but that's partly because I live in the UK.

Every company I've worked at has said very clearly not to comment about work things on social media. I would definitely have been in serious trouble for this. I imagine some strongly worded emails from marketing are flying around OpenAI right now.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#883

Post by p1esk »

armchairhacker wrote: post #369
reducesuffering wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Practical?! The goalposts will keep moving until morale improves (narrator: it doesn't)

The goalposts for the singularity have always been that AI improves itself fully autonomously. AFAIK OpenAI is heavily using AI but still employs human researchers and developers.

They said they will automate AI researchers by March 2028. I personally think it will happen by March 2027.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#884

Post by ex-aws-dude »

stephbook wrote: post #409
pu_pe wrote: post #119

OpenAI thinks of this as a scoop, and it is, but the possibility that they trained the model on the prompts of the other mathematicians they were competing with will leave a terrible taste on every scientist's mouth. Seems like yet another advantage of using open models right here.

> they trained the model on the prompts of the other mathematicians they were competing with How would they have gotten that mathematician's progress though? Did that guy also use OpenAI? If that's the case, it only strenghtens their claims lol. If mathematician decide to use OpenAI's model to do the work, that only reiterates how strong their models are.

The guy did use OpenAI

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#885

Post by JumpCrisscross »

dekhn wrote: post #845
octoberfranklin wrote: post #837

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf This really need to be a top-level story on HN.. I asked whether the model had been trained on, or had access to, our sessions in Codex, into which we had been putting all our drafts for the whole of this project. I was told the model did not look up user data. I asked again, about training, and I did not get an answer. This whole episode is more horrific than "AI is eat…

We don't have any proof of that at all. Please stop rushing to judge without data.

> We don't have any proof of that

It’s fair to give benefit of doubt to Buckmaster given OpenAI is currently being very credibly sued by Apple for openly stealing others’ original work in another context.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#886

Post by lbreakjai »

d_silin wrote: post #77
echelon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is going to be dramatic in so many different ways. - First off, to reiterate, WOW. - Second of all, when does this end? Are we at the dawn of the singularity now? - People are saying OpenAI "stole" this from the work of an OpenAI user. If so, that's pretty fucked - how can we trust them? - Time to think about retiring from any knowledge work or business? This could be winner-take-all where a leading lab can butt…

...absolutely nothing will change short-term. Long-term, you still have to pay all the bills, but you won't be able to find a job (all taken by AIs).

Who is the AI doing the job for if no one is able to afford anything?

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#887

Post by hobofan »

Caracas288 wrote: post #694
pred_ wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we did not read any private chats Your post says “While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models .” We can discuss what it means to “read” things but obviously the issue here isn't whether you did it manually or automatically. But more importantly, what on earth are you doing threatening real scientists to remove their coauthors, then ma…

If the training toggle is switched on, maybe OpenAI doesn't consider a chat to be private? Therefore making this a 'safe' statement.

The distiction they are trying to make is: "One of our employees or the model was able to verbatim read the chats when they were actively tackling the problem" vs "The chat of someone working on the problem may have ended up in the training set of the model".

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#888

Post by Palmik »

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

Here is the other side of that story https://x.com/SebastienBubeck/status/2097379411691516310

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#890

Post by scam-altman »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #8

Is this the one that was allegedly based on someone else's actual work & prompts? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49605915 https://bsky.app/profile/quantian.bsky.social/post/3muyhwbcd... https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf

[flagged]
Post reply on HN