Live data from Hacker News

How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy

science.org

81–90 of 242 posts

Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy

#81

Does it matter who gets the credit at this point? Both used AI to do 99%+ of the work. So... do machines have ego?

If you take OpenAI at face value, they claim they threw a relatively simple prompt at the problem on a whim and boom presto, a swarm of "agents", 15 million dollars and 90 hours later they disproved the hypothesis. Wow, look at how powerful our AI is, you don't even need to be a world-class mathematician, you just tell it to solve a problem and it does!

By contrast, what the world-class 2 mathematicians did was sat down and started working on their proof for over a year, using AI along the way to help with their research. A much more grounded and realistic use of these tools, but one that doesn't generate nearly as much hype as the alternative.

The cracks in OAI's story has been immediately disproven, and they seemingly plagiarized the work of the 2 and then threw the team of researchers and the 15 million dollars at the problem after the fact. It doesn't exactly bode well for their hype machine when you consider the chain of events here, which is why people care about this, as OAI's constant and incessant lies they spew every minute of every day is finally hopefully catching up to them, and right before their big IPO too.

Editing to add: And I think it's all such a shame. We live in a time with genuinely insanely cool technology that is doing some truly incredible, ground-breaking stuff, but it's all tainted by a gaggle of greedy sociopaths and reprobates whose only goal in life is to have the largest number in their bank accounts. LLMs could've been such an amazingly neutral and cool and useful tool had more level-headed people been at the wheel, but instead we're stuck with this childish bullshit and giving the likes of Sam Altman real power to enact societal collapse.

Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy

#82
post #18

Regardless of what you think of the priority dispute issue discussed on sibling threads, I’m highly skeptical of the closing quote that this Navier Stokes result means that the same approach of casually spending a few million on agentic computation is going to solve end to end materials design or drug development. Those problems can’t be formally verified with an automated theorem prover. We have a lot of physics bas…

>We have a lot of physics based simulation tools, but they tend to focus on small subsets of the full design problem and they make limiting approximations

Do you think it is possible that better math will lead to better physics models?

Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy

#85
post #23

I think it was a pretty questionable thing to do by trying to front-run these researchers even if they didn’t make use of their techniques. The fact that they may have inadvertently “borrowed” their work via training data makes it much worse. OpenAI’s behavior here — even if you only consider [their] side of the story — was (at best) in bad taste.

This is the take I agree.

It is mean spirited but nevertheless sold their model

Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy

#86
post #82
post #18

Regardless of what you think of the priority dispute issue discussed on sibling threads, I’m highly skeptical of the closing quote that this Navier Stokes result means that the same approach of casually spending a few million on agentic computation is going to solve end to end materials design or drug development. Those problems can’t be formally verified with an automated theorem prover. We have a lot of physics bas…

>We have a lot of physics based simulation tools, but they tend to focus on small subsets of the full design problem and they make limiting approximations Do you think it is possible that better math will lead to better physics models?

It might but the math results from GenAI so far have been limited to finding counterexamples to known conjectures, not building new mathematics.

Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its called an analogy

It's one of the seven most important problems in mathematics. Pick a better analogy.

If anything I'm diminishing the importance of calculus and pi by comparing it to this bullshit

Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy

#88
post #79
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read Buckmasters statement, he specifically notes that they used the paid subscriptions, iirc.

Paying for an account doesn't opt you out by itself, right? Has he stated anywhere that he actually opted out? But if not, then I also don't understand why OpenAI's communications about this have been so vague, they could've just said that he didn't opt out, using those chats in training data follows their ToS and that's it (whether that's "fair" is a separate discussion).

There has been no statement either way, as far as I could find beyond them only using commercially available models, though given Alpöges employer, I'd be surprised if they didn't opt out. In any case, for such work, ZDR or self-hosting seem to be an absolute must now.

Unless OpenAI can show that training was permitted, this will erode the limited trust that many users have had in such toggles and may lead to further, uncomfortable inquiries.

Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy

#89
Regardless of the end result, OpenAI's behavior would be a career-ending ethics scandal for a human mathematician. This bit alone would be a career-ender.

> 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.

I wonder if an appropriate response from the mathematical community would be a good old-fashioned shunning. Mathematicians are allowed to use OpenAI's tools as much as they want, but no one with any current or prior OpenAI affiliation gets published in a reputable journal, ever.

Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy

#90

Who should get credit? All the humans who ever worked to create the data. And the AI company for making the search program that searched through the data and found the solution.

Who should get credit? Sam Altman, and we should give him a couple hundred billion more as well.

Snark aside, the researchers working on this, who built the foundation, should get credit, and they are.

Post reply on HN