Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

read.misalignedmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 49 posts

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#11

Post by fwlr »

demibabs wrote: post #9

This article is completely mistaken. The original researchers did not solve Navier-Stokes, while OpenAI did. Ironically, this seems like the type of mistake you'd make if you used AI to do your research.

For my money, the most “AI does my research” mistake I’ve seen in this whole mess is someone saying “the original researchers did not solve Navier-Stokes, while OpenAI did”. It has all the hallmarks of a classic AI blunder - partially eliding the name of the concept while oversimplifying the concept, a dramatic burst of confidence because it got to express its conclusion as a contradiction, etc. You can practically hear the original AI sentence (“One party lands the Navier-Stokes solve — not the original researchers, but OpenAI.”) before a few words were shuffled around to wash off some of the slop.

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#12

Post by kelseyfrog »

zaubarari wrote: post #5
lcubw wrote: post #2

OpenAI claims to have solved a decades old mathematical problem just as researchers are about to publish about their solution. Coincidence?

It's just a desperate attempt to prove how grandiose their new model is

If they want to desperately solve the remaining Millennium Prize problems, I won't object.

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#13

Post by WarmWash »

demibabs wrote: post #9

This article is completely mistaken. The original researchers did not solve Navier-Stokes, while OpenAI did. Ironically, this seems like the type of mistake you'd make if you used AI to do your research.

"Is OpenAI taking everyone for fools?"

Author proceeds to take their audience for fools

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#14

Post by aedfhgaerty »

elevatedastalt wrote: post #8
cratermoon wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we're arguing over whether or not openai stole the other researcher's work. The evidence is pretty damning. https://techcrunch.com/2026/09/08/openai-fought-dirty-on-car...

Actually the evidence is not damning at all. The evidence is a combination of two things: Tristan insinuating they did (note, not claiming but suggesting or implying), and their own statement saying "While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models ." The latter is being used by everyone as a sign of guilt, but it's clear that they are makin…

>The evidence is a combination of two things

And a third thing: OpenAI's thuggish behavior. Threatening a researcher with reputational ruin and demanding one of their competitors be denied proper credit is unacceptable, and we know OpenAI did both (unless Buckmaster is simply lying. which I find unlikely).

>many have "Use this data to improve" setting on.

Quite irrelevant. We are talking about scientific misconduct, not IP law. It would be misconduct for OpenAI to publish without proper reference to prior art even if that prior art had been explicitly committed to the public domain 1,000 years ago.

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#15

Post by TitusCaius »

imjonse wrote: post #6

OpenAI should put their internal model to solve the rest of Millenium Prize problems too (assuming their difficulty is in the same ballpark). That would be a proof the model did it without using existing work on the problem.

Though they claim the contrary, it looks that OpenAI would get nowhere if it did not have information about a recent breakthrough.

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#16

Post by avree »

demibabs wrote: post #9

This article is completely mistaken. The original researchers did not solve Navier-Stokes, while OpenAI did. Ironically, this seems like the type of mistake you'd make if you used AI to do your research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existenc...

Going off the believable citations in the wiki page here, it seems more complicated than "who solved it", as there's a mathematician, Anthropic, and OpenAI having a priority dispute.

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#18

Post by zeroonetwothree »

imjonse wrote: post #6

OpenAI should put their internal model to solve the rest of Millenium Prize problems too (assuming their difficulty is in the same ballpark). That would be a proof the model did it without using existing work on the problem.

LLMs seem to be much better at finding counterexamples than other types of proof. It’s unlikely the other millennium problems will be solved with counter examples

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#19

Post by psvv »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #18
imjonse wrote: post #6

OpenAI should put their internal model to solve the rest of Millenium Prize problems too (assuming their difficulty is in the same ballpark). That would be a proof the model did it without using existing work on the problem.

LLMs seem to be much better at finding counterexamples than other types of proof. It’s unlikely the other millennium problems will be solved with counter examples

I haven't been keeping up with all the math proofs. Does anyone know if there have been any LLM proofs that are NOT counterexamples?

Re: Is OpenAI Taking Everyone for Fools?

#20

Post by cyanydeez »

imjonse wrote: post #6

OpenAI should put their internal model to solve the rest of Millenium Prize problems too (assuming their difficulty is in the same ballpark). That would be a proof the model did it without using existing work on the problem.

why not just solve world hunger while we're blowing smoke.,
Post reply on HN