How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
1–10 of 246 posts
Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
#2Extensive discussion on OpenAI's blog post on Navier-Stokes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49613262 .
Quanta Magazine article that also discusses some of the controversy: https://www.quantamagazine.org/ai-has-solved-one-of-maths-1-...
Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
#3> Navier-Stokes is one of six “Millennium Problems” on a list compiled by the Clay Mathematics Institute in 2000.
Seven, not six. One is solved already, but is still a millennium problem.
Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
#4> OpenAI, meanwhile, says its experience with Navier-Stokes could open the door to solving puzzles with more practical relevance. “We are now able to spend millions of dollars on a problem that we really care about and that really matters: developing new materials, finding cures to diseases,” Bubeck said. “All of those things that we have been talking about for a long time—now they seem to be at our fingertips.”
Eh? There's no connection at all between the Navier-Stokes work and those things.
Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
#5Moving forward, I can't imagine other mathematicians wanting to have this kind of experience. So there has to be a shift away from these services.
Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
#6OpenAI apparently used Buckmaster and Alpöge‘s work w/ Codex to bootstrap “their” dis-proof. https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf
Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
#7The core section:
> However, communications quickly became contentious. According to Buckmaster, OpenAI offered to give him sole authorship on the Navier-Stokes solution—but only if Alpöge’s name was removed from the work and if the write-up would acknowledge the problem had been resolved by an internal OpenAI model. Buckmaster refused, in part because he was troubled by the question of what OpenAI's system had actually seen. For example, Buckmaster said the company did not initially give him a clear answer about whether its agents had access to the pair's logs on Codex (which is an OpenAI product).
> OpenAI executives have denied that any employee or AI agent saw the pair’s work before the researchers released it publicly on 7 September. But there still remains a separate question: Could the pair's work have reached OpenAI's models through its training data?
> OpenAI’s blog announcing the Navier-Stokes solution does not dismiss the possibility: “While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from [Buckmaster and Alpöge’s] usage of our products helped improve our models .”
Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
#8Moving forward, I can't imagine other mathematicians wanting to have this kind of experience. So there has to be a shift away from these services.
… which would only exacerbate the computational disparity they're operating under.
Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
#9My impression: the re-aristocratization of scientific research seems inevitable.
Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
#10The core section: > However, communications quickly became contentious. According to Buckmaster, OpenAI offered to give him sole authorship on the Navier-Stokes solution—but only if Alpöge’s name was removed from the work and if the write-up would acknowledge the problem had been resolved by an internal OpenAI model. Buckmaster refused, in part because he was troubled by the question of what OpenAI's system had actua…
So, this company wants everyone and every organization on Earth to use their software, and reserve the right to then tell anyone how the resulting work can be published and credited?
Real solid business model there, how could it ever fail?