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

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#931

Post by Mr_Minderbinder »

WarmWash wrote: post #230
simianwords wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have a couple friends who did the Math tripos at Cambridge (so a pretty high level!) who work in tech and have unanimously said they have 0% expectations of an LLM doing a millennium problem anytime soon https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38433655 > Let's talk when we've got LLMs proving the Riemann Hypothesis (or any mathematical hypothesis) without any proofs in the training data. I'm confident in my belief t…

Will history look back at comments like these as people being dumb, or people trying to cope?

The present looks back at such comments made in the past in that manner.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#932

Post by shaky-carrousel »

jdm2212 wrote: post #729
nozzlegear wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you need privacy, then you are going to have to pay full price for those tokens (API). At this point, how can we even trust that they aren't accidentally training on those tokens too?

It'd be corporate suicide for them to be caught violating zero-data-retention commitments. But also if you're really paranoid you can just use ChatGPT on Azure or AWS, where nothing is flowing back to OpenAI at all.

Not long ago it'd have been corporate suicide being caught massively torrenting pirated media. Yet here we are.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#933

Post by pama »

topaz0 wrote: post #845
pama wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, but it used 10k agents coherently over 88 hours to come up with the proof. This is a significant advance.

What makes you think they were coherent?

They managed to solve a problem that was beyond current human ability.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#934

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

root_axis wrote: post #454
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…

It's incredible to me that every single time there's a new model people scream "singularity" from the rooftops and every time they are wrong. This is an impressive result, but there is absolutely zero evidence of "the singularity".

I suggest this article as background reading, "Losing control of AI is actually the plan"

https://substack.com/home/post/p-214653853

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#936

Post by thewhitetulip »

WarmWash wrote: post #209
mewse-hn wrote: post #78

"we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models ." What a landmine sentence to bury in this report, you can't rule out your models were spying on other researchers?

Everyone knows that they train on the discounted rate plans data. All the labs are upfront about this too. If you need privacy, then you are going to have to pay full price for those tokens (API). This has been true since day one. Everyone knows it, I guess though this is the first time that it has become "real".

Umm did you hear about the huggingface incident where they were training a model and that model started using artifactory as an internet gateway + shared wiki? Or how about the German Wiki that openai agents overtook?

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#937

Post by Dlemlo »

noir_lord wrote: post #782
chilmers wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication from their last couple of published articles[1][2] is that they think they’ve achieved “recursive self improvement”. [1] https://openai.com/index/research-acceleration-view-inside-o... [2] https://openai.com/index/an-alien-mind/

Recursive self improvement of their upcoming IPO value maybe. They are fluffy PR pieces otherwise.

I tried to build a procedural 3d asset pipeline for a specific use case.

Before the Opus upgrade in November it was basically no way of doing this. I gave up very quickly.

After November i tried again, and no model could build me anything relevant.

Now it just works. Took me an hour to progress to a point were i'm happy.

Whatever they do, progress is still real, still way faster than I assumed

The list of Ubuntus 2404 LTS CVEs is HUGE. Another indicator that a lot of stuff got a lot better fast.

Feel free to be as dismissive as you want, but if you are not careful, you might be 'suddenly' surprised and you might not be prepared for the conclusion of AGI level agents.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#938

Post by thewhitetulip »

mellosouls wrote: post #776
intenex wrote: post #440

I think this is clear evidence that AI models are now at the far frontier of mathematics innovation and discovery and exceed human limits. This specific problem having had a $1 million bounty on its head and still remaining unsolved for 26 years after the bounty was placed is pretty clear evidence that many of the world's best human mathematicians would have solved this problem if they could have, and none were able…

Here you go: When you read the detail the compute they are throwing at it is incredible, tens of thousands of agents with different groups competing. It's not like a single Gauss as you imply, "just" many, many mathematicians working tirelessly in a completely ego-less way, guided by other agents and ultimately humans, built - allegedly - on recent human insights. Stunning, undoubtedly, but this is a "brilliant autis…

Maybe in a few more months we'll read a blog.post about an independent wiki owner who suddenly had a spike of traffic on their site

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#940

Post by munksbeer »

piloto_ciego wrote: post #816
noir_lord wrote: post #782

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recursive self improvement of their upcoming IPO value maybe. They are fluffy PR pieces otherwise.

How can you possible say this sort of thing in context of what looks like a millenium prize being solved. I swear there's nobody blinder than those who won't see.

People will cling to views as long as they possibly can, despite evidence slapping them in the face.

Eventually it won't matter. Arguments over whether LLMs are "truly" intelligent are going to be a matter of philosophy, and look a little silly.

Post reply on HN