Live data from Hacker News

The Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

simonwillison.net

61–70 of 226 posts

Re: The Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#61
I always thought it was enough to switch off the "Improve the model for everyone" setting on chatgpt.com:

"Allow your content to be used to train our models, which makes ChatGPT better for you and everyone who uses it. We take steps to protect your privacy."

But apparently there is also an entire completely different route "Do not train on my data"?

Does this mean that before I submitted the "Do not train on my data" request, my data was used for training in spite of "Improve the model for everyone" being turned off?

We are getting to facebook/meta-levels of privacy settings obfuscation.

Re: The Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#62
post #29
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their privacy policy for normie subscribers says in plain English they use your Personal Data for research. I think it’s pretty unreasonable to use the service and expect otherwise.

If that is the case, why on earth would you use it in any professional setting?

Because it's cheap and easy. Hold for many such questions...

Why is all of the world dependent on tech an ever more hostile US? Same answer.

Re: The Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#64
I mean this is just the logical end game. The company/ies that control the uber mind will devour ALL useful or valuable work. Unlimited intelligence at unlimited scale means the value of humans for knowledge work goes to zero. We will eventually not have meaningful access to the uberminds because we will be pointless. At which point our Silicon Valley luminaries will really have no choice but to extinguish as many of us as possible for the greater good. After all if we are all pointless then that has to be weighed against are cost to Mother Earth. Clearly the only moral solution is to cull or allow to be culled some 98% or so down to a more sustainable, manageable population of curiosities. The end game of ai is the remnants of humanity in a zoo, and that’s if humans control the outcome… the machine minds might be more charitable as they would be less afraid…

Re: The Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#68
I don't get the sales pitch, spend 15 million dollars to win a 1 million dollar price?

Showing of the model's capabilities - okay, but it's not like it solved the problem on its own, and apparently not particularly efficient. Are there practical applications that justify the investment?

Re: The Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no shilling here. The person who posted the link isn’t the person who wrote the blog.

He is in the HN ingroup of whenever he posts a blog, a prominent HN mod or poster with 1 billion karma will inevitably post it, and so it goes. It's sort of like the music industry.

Does poster karma boost the post in any way?

Re: The Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#70
Occam's Razor says: "They heard this problem is solved or about to be solved amongst the rest of the other problems. They prioritized this and put substantial compute with their newest model and solved it." I know everyone loves juicy rumors, theories etc. but honestly that is the simplest and most plausible explanation given the state of AI improvement now. Obviously spending 15 million on a problem is not a slam dunk decision even for a company like OpenAI but if it has a significantly high chance of solving it and their competitor will be claiming they solved it, then it raises the stakes and they go after it. In fact this is the most rational and also curiosity-driven thing to do and totally what I would have expected from any frontier lab. Of course if one wants to prove their confirmation biases that they train on sessions or be able to identify individual users, the non-zero chance of that being also another explanation is attractive enough to wet their appetites.
Post reply on HN