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

731–740 of 862 posts

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#731

Post by desterothx »

vatsachak wrote: post #309
robotpepi wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because very few people actually have access to these logs, all access is monitored and recorded, and improper access will get you fired. It's not worth risking your job over something like this. That's beyond naive. The money this would mean for OpenAI (and the money they've already spent)...

Okay suppose that you have a trillion dollar competitor salivating at the mouth to ruin your business, which is based on user privacy. Why would you risk the trillions of dollars worth of business for the niche result of Navier-Stokes, which your average person cannot differentiate from a JEMS paper?

Because your competitor is likely doing the same thing, so they wont even try to call you out. Oh oh or because you're planning the largest IPO in history. The opinions of average people on the paper aren't going to be the ones reflected in the markets...

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#732

Post by chinathrow »

DeepSeaTortoise wrote: post #698
esalman wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

> If OpenAI is indeed using customer data to train their models to win a $1m prize Is that even a question? Of course everything not kept on premise at gunpoint is going to be trained on. The chances of getting caught are 0 and the consequences of getting caught are 0 (as we've seen with copyright laws going from sending people to jail for years to unenforced within months). Yet the benefits are through the roof. You…

> The chances of getting caught are 0

I'd say non-zero, as seen in the current state of affairs.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#733

Post by chinathrow »

epistasis wrote: post #391
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…

> 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…

If I were involved, I'd file suit and have them to at least not delete any proof.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#734

Post by chinathrow »

qnleigh wrote: post #17

> It was also said that if OpenAI posted after us, they would say that we deserved the Clay Prize, and that we were the “closest humans to the problem”. I declined both offers. I said that if OpenAI released its result in the way proposed I would go public with what happened. The reply was, “Why would you ruin your career?” I replied that I am an academic, and asked why he thought going public would ruin my career. T…

> "If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice."

Exhibit nr 8453324 to not trust Sam Altman and OpenAI.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#735

Post by fc417fc802 »

za_creature wrote: post #616
fc417fc802 wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about my line of reasoning is nonsense? I made no claim either in support of or contrary to yours. Rather I pointed out that by this logic literally everything that an LLM spits out is plagiarism of the vast majority of the entire body of human literature in existence. Can you offer meaningful refutation of that observation of mine?

Many do indeed hold the position that all LLM output is uncopyrightable plagiarism. They're probably right, but there's an even stronger argument here: Science papers of a phd level must contain: 1. one or more novel insights 2. a long list of citations to contextualize them and 3. some work to prove that the insights are in fact meaningful --- In this context, consider a prompt based diffusion model which, when aske…

I neither agree nor disagree that all LLM outputs are plagiarism. I merely objected that the line of argument engaged in was specious given the context.

As to your stronger argument. You only cite prior novel insights that you're actively building off of and that (approximately speaking) fall outside of the status quo. You don't for example cite leibniz or newton despite your paper making heavy use of calculus.

So is there any actual evidence that openai trained on the data in question? And further, did the openai proof directly build on someone else's novel insights as opposed to deriving everything from scratch? (I don't pretend to know but the vast majority of what I've seen so far in the comments here is what I'd characterize as brain-dead screeching. Certainly not the level of discussion I come to HN for.)

Separately, consider the implications of what you're arguing for there. Suppose your horse in a space suit picture were somehow valuable to society. Suppose that due to shortcomings of your tool you lacked the ability to readily and accurately identify the originators of the relevant concepts. Should you refrain from publishing this useful work due to the lack of citations? How are you supposed to handle this situation?

Remember that in this analogy everyone throughout society is on the same page that your tool consistently recycles other people's ideas while being technically incapable of producing reliable citations. The question is a simple trolley-esque problem - do you publish without proper citations for everyone's benefit and if so what are you supposed to say?

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#736

Post by saidnooneever »

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…

people are so greedy to have their name on something forgetting a) human progress is shared through its cycle. people build upon eachothers ideas and knowledge. and b) all these models consist of information stolen from others. Who really solved it if all u did was prompt some illegally obtained repository of data..??

Its like saying you won the car race, but you stole the fastest car and had your m8 drive you around the track.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#737

Post by tristanj »

pms wrote: post #723
tristanj wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claiming OAI was going to "totally discredit" Buckmaster is baseless. From the article, it seems OAI wanted to continue discussing the situation with Buckmaster and reach a resolution, but Buckmaster did not want to, declined to respond, and published first. Also keep in mind we've only heard one side of the story, so any interpretation of events so far is incomplete. There should be a lot more information from OAI's…

Are we reading the same article (page 3)?

OpenAI never asked for the removal of another coauthor. The parent comment is spreading misinformation.

OpenAI offered to let Buckmaster to write their Millennium Prize paper, so long as Alpoge (who works at Anthropic) was not a coauthor on the OpenAI paper. Buckmaster declined this offer.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#738

Post by barrkel »

DeepSeaTortoise wrote: post #698
esalman wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

> If OpenAI is indeed using customer data to train their models to win a $1m prize Is that even a question? Of course everything not kept on premise at gunpoint is going to be trained on. The chances of getting caught are 0 and the consequences of getting caught are 0 (as we've seen with copyright laws going from sending people to jail for years to unenforced within months). Yet the benefits are through the roof. You…

This would be contract law, and it would also be a huge reputational risk. All it would take is a whistleblower and there would be billions lost.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#739

Post by harhargange »

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)

This is definitely true. So i can now justify my recent gpu purchase

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#740

Post by make3 »

highfrequency wrote: post #412

From OpenAI: > While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models This is the crux of it. If Tristan's work and insights were not used to train OpenAI models, then this just looks like a case of hyper-competitive academic sniping that has been going on for decades (check out Watson and Crick!) accelerated by AI as a tool. The fact that this is…

honnestly I would be less surprised if a human learned the info and prompted the model in the right direction
Post reply on HN