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

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#971

Post by piloto_ciego »

munksbeer wrote: post #931
piloto_ciego wrote: post #808

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It literally reminds me of climate denialism.

“Line go up! That is bad! Planet might become unsafe for human life.”

“Nuh uhh! Malankovich cycles and humans are a drop in the bucket! Krakatoa! See!”

“All of California is on fire!”

“Haha, stupid shrill liberals! Go rake your woke forests! Drill baby drill!”

“Are you kidding?! Look at this graph.”

“That’s just propaganda from the elites of the Build-a-bear group!”

“Do we even live in the same universe?”

“And 5g causes COVID!”

“Oh, I guess we’re don’t.”

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#972

Post by preg_match »

mlcrypto wrote: post #133
Yajirobe wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Anthropic employee even use OpenAI's models? Cross-polination would have been avoided

They should have used a zero data retention agreement, user error

I doubt it would've made any difference, zero data retention is truly trivial to get around and I think it's highly likely OAI is already doing this. Just use another model to distill, summarize, and/or paraphrase the data and boom - you get to train on the ideas, while claiming zero data retention, which is true. You legitimately retained zero data.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#973

Post by achierius »

anon109 wrote: post #582
jijijijij wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should I just say fuck it, and go hitchhiking across Europe with some friends? Yes. Assuming you are young and haven't had such experience. The world is changing not just because of AI. Everything is unstable right now. You may regret not enjoying the remainder of stability and economic viability prior generations had. It's not like you can expect to get ahead by powering through education. Either your career persp…

Have you people gone insane?

There is a land war in Europe for the first time in generations. The only reason you can say that big things aren't happening is because you're lucky enough to live where they're happening.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#974

Post by achierius »

DudleyBluffles wrote: post #632
JPC21 wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just don't. If you read the story here carefully, you see that AI was used to work from theory built by others which showed that the Euler equations possesed finite-time blow-ups. But to make that step, actual good understanding for mathematics was needed. My experience with software has been the exact same.

I fear this is only temporary and due mostly to the complexity of the problem. Consider the recent counter-example to the Dinitz–Garg–Goemans conjecture: > https://chatgpt.com/share/6a60b2eb-0b64-83ee-9c76-7931ca1de0... The prompts for the chat above are: > Construct a counterexample to general (non-planar) case of Dinitz Garg Goemans conjecture. You should do a breakthrough and find a structured counterexample. > [g…

You're probably correct. FWIW most people with math degrees haven't gone on to do math research regardless, so in that regard this isn't a big change.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#975

Post by achierius »

backtr4ck wrote: post #941
colesantiago wrote: post #7

Is this truly the beginning of the AGI era? Running agents and prompting excessively to produce 'slopcode' to solve mathematical problems and generate a solution. If this is what anyone calls 'slop' then slop has no meaning. I'm all for it on the use case of solving mathematical breakthroughs!

No AGI here, it's just extreme brute forcing. AI doesn't understand fluids dynamics, it just slops it's way to the solution.

If you don't need to 'understand' to do this, then maybe what you call 'understanding' is less important than you think. When people in the real world reach for a tool, what they care about is whether or not it'll produce results, not whether or not it has the capacity for interior phenomenological experience.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#976

Post by an0malous »

ameliaquining wrote: post #635
an0malous wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The things you don’t care about are highly relevant to that claim

Elaborate?

If the model started from work that Tristan Buckmaster had already done, and was aided by an entire team of mathematicians as he alleged, then it's not as capable as you seem to be precluding

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#977

Post by frozenseven »

diomedes wrote: post #869
frozenseven wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a recent rumor about the Hodge Conjecture. I'd keep an eye on that one. But like the other person who replied, I'm also rooting for Yang-Mills. That has massive potential for unlocking a series of physics results.

interesting, i haven't heard anything about that. i don't know much about the hodge conjecture, all i really know is that it's incredibly abstract and obtuse - not sure if that has any implication for solvability by an AI though. do you have any source for the hodge rumor? curious to learn more

So far it's just anonymous accounts on X and Reddit during the past few days, no "official leak" or anything like that. But the rumors about Navier-Stokes being solved started the same way. If somebody really solved it, the incentive is to come forward soon before being scooped by another team. We'll see.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#978

Post by dekhn »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #888
dekhn wrote: post #848

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have any proof of that at all. Please stop rushing to judge without data.

> We don't have any proof of that It’s fair to give benefit of doubt to Buckmaster given OpenAI is currently being very credibly sued by Apple for openly stealing others’ original work in another context.

A prior of "one large company is current involved in an unrelated lawsuit with another large company" is pretty weak; the case is undecided and about an entirely different kind of IP theft.

In short I think a lot of people are jumping to conclusions without supporting evidence and that's really not helping the situation.

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#979

Post by [deleted] »

tedsanders wrote: post #620
Imnimo wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we did not read any private chats The question I am interested in is not "did we read private chats", but "was this new model trained using any of Tristan and Levent's chats, regardless of whether they were marked private". Can you comment on that?

If they opted out of training, then we definitely did not train on them. If they did not opt out, then I don't personally know if training signals came from their chats, and I don't think we'd be able to tell without their cooperation in identifying them. And even if signals were trained on in some manner, I highly doubt it made a difference to a problem as challenging as the NS proof. Reasons for my doubt: - I know…

[deleted]

Re: On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

#980

Post by jdm2212 »

alightsoul wrote: post #967
jdm2212 wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Zero data retention commitments? Technically generating synthetic data off of user data on the fly, counts as zero retention of user data! And it technically means they didn't lie either, because they didn't keep user data, they kept their own, synthetic data. That is what they already do with reasoning when they provide summaries/sanitized versions of it to prevent "distillation attacks" even via the API. They gener…

This is flatly false. ZDR means the customer request is processed and nothing about its content remains on the model provider's servers.
Post reply on HN