A couple hundred billion dollars of investment better solve cancer, hunger, and climate change, otherwise they are horribly misplaced :)
On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem
931–940 of 1001 posts
Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem
#932"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
#933Earlier 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
#934I 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
#935[flagged]
Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem
#936Earlier 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.
Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem
#937Earlier 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.
How? By being knowledgeable, intelligent, and intellectually honest.
Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem
#938Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dislike both AI oligarchs as much as people who do this kind of deflection. People are not complaining about problems being solved or advancement in technology. They are complaining about terrible people doing terrible things.
I think the point is that one of the biggest problems in the field has been solved and yet the excitement from this is nearly nil. Can you imagine if say breast cancer were cured under similar circumstances, or even worse (say OpenAI openly admitting it basically stole a bunch of other researcher's chatGPT conversations)? No one would care about these petty bickerings- or at least the headline "CURE FOR BREAST CANCER…
Perhaps the commenters don't care. Take solace in that you do.
Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem
#939Earlier quoted context omitted.
> will soon far surpass that of humans To be fair, I think it's still an open question about how far it might surpass human capabilities. I think it's clear that its speed of development will be significantly faster, but it's technically not proven that the frontier and problems don't themselves become increasingly difficult faster than any acceleration in intelligence past the point of human training, data and exist…
Fields that allow verification, like math, will far surpass human level because they don't need human data for training. It's exactly the same as with Chess
> It's exactly the same as with Chess
I think you might be missing my point.
My point is that you are probably correct but it is not proven.
If the field that requires verification has an increase in difficulty which exceeds the increase in intelligence, than the capabilities might surpass human months but not by far.
For example, we saw a rapid decrease in space exploration progress after the discovery of the Moon because it is much much more difficult to get to Mars compared to the Moon. What we don't know is what the frontier looks like. It may have a gradual ramp up in difficulty, but it might also involve some sort of cliffs which even artificial intelligence is unable to climb.
Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem
#940Earlier 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.
They have no zero data retention commitments anymore though? In fact they have quite the opposite, a direct message of storing prompts since the release of sol (but we wont train on it trust us wink wink)