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

Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

cims.nyu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

861–870 of 872 posts

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#861

Post by CamperBob2 »

fn-mote wrote: post #527
ignoramous wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're allowed to arm-chair judge harshly: It isn't uncommon for those ( anybody ) on the cusp of "greatness" to be delusional when challenged: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-to-know-about-main-c...

Who here is on the cusp of greatness?? Or thinks they are? I really don’t understand which party you are referring to.

Anyone who comes close to solving a Millennium problem can honestly say they are on the cusp of greatness. Not sure what this question proves either way.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#862

Post by hardbass »

augment_me wrote: post #369
mti wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a serious discipline like mathematics, this isn't just an asshole move, but a career-ending level of academic misconduct.

*In the old discipline of mathematics. We are in new times, where capital and compute decides mathematics, so we don't give a shit anymore

What is your view on the proof of the Four Color Theorem?

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#863

Post by HWR_14 »

menato wrote: post #812
HWR_14 wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the desire to remove Levent. "Off the clock, when Anthropic engineers want to break new ground, they use ChatGPT" sounds like a great ad.

All these small details will be forgotten in less than a year. But association "Navier-Stokes -- OpenAI" will be part of the history. In my opinion, they are thinking about long term PR here.

That association seems like it will survive the actual names of the authors, regardless of who they are. But I'm not a marketing person.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#864

Post by bawolff »

ted_dunning wrote: post #708
bawolff wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OpenAI's LLMs are not humans Neither are guns. Which is why we punish the person shooting the gun and not the gun. Industrial equipment, which is how i would classify LLMs, hurting people is nothing new. The relevant questions are: - did someone intend it to happen? - was someone negligent in taking reasonable steps to prevent something foreseeable? The justice system doesn't punish people for legitimate accidents.…

And the third time it happens, is that still just an accident?

The justice system relies on evidence not vibes.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#865

Post by westurner »

westurner wrote: post #837
westurner wrote: post #836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Blowup for the Euler equations with smooth forcing" (2026) https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/euler.pdf "Blowup for the Boussinesq equations with smooth forcing" (2026) https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/boussinesq.pdf "Extending the Córdoba–Martínez-Zoroa IPM Blow-Up to Uniformly Spacetime Smooth Forcing" (2026) https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/ipm.pdf "Finite Time Blowup for the Euler equation" (2026) https://cdn.openai.com…

Is everything in NavierStokesAndEuler/NavierStokes [1] precedent to the derivations? How to tree shake Lean4? (Edit: `lake shake`,) [1] https://github.com/openai/NavierStokesAndEuler/tree/main/Nav...

(I am again posting this comment, which was certainly censored in error: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49605915#49633297 )

What about compressible fluids? Existing Navier-Stokes models for compressible fluids:

"On the implosion of a compressible fluid II: Singularity formation" (2022) https://projecteuclid.org/journals/annals-of-mathematics/vol...

"Blow-up of the 3-D compressible Navier-Stokes equations for monatomic gases" (2025) https://arxiv.org/html/2501.15701v2

...

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49389524#49404787:

> "I/Q Sampling for Signal Phase" (2026-08) https://share.gemini.google/rDVcVwDnWPTc :

>> It's a Twistor-Grassmanian mapping?

From "Navier-Stokes Breakthrough, FTLE, and SQG" (2026-09) https://share.gemini.google/sq2XmhphMFWE :

> The Mathematical Formulation: Because SQS is explicitly a superfluid Bose–Einstein condensate, treating it purely as a classical Navier–Stokes fluid misses quantized vorticity. The full formulation maps to the Gross–Pitaevskii (Euler–Korteweg) equations via the Madelung transformation

...

> To adapt the Córdoba–Martínez-Zoroa (CMZ) / Buckmaster / OpenAI Lean cascade to Euler–Korteweg, three core structural adjustments must be made:

> - Irrotationality Constraint

> - Third-Order Dispersion

> - Hydrodynamic Energy Functional

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#866

Post by [deleted] »

dash2 wrote: post #46
postalcoder wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm stunned that people are taking this accusation as a fact. OpenAI is no stranger to rivalry with Anthropic but 1. it's not like user data is sitting around on some kitchen table somewhere and 2. I consider OpenAI to be as economically motivated as any other actor in this space and playing around with user data like that would destroy their business. There are things that Buckmaster alleged and things that he specu…

He didn't even make that accusation! > I asked whether the model had been trained on, or had access to, our sessions in Codex, into which we had been putting all our drafts for the whole of this project. I was told the model did not look up user data. I asked again, about training, and I did not get an answer. The shocking/interesting thing would be if it was trained on the sessions. I think it's very implausible tha…

[deleted]

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#867

Post by SantalBlush »

benmathes wrote: post #858
SantalBlush wrote: post #817

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like data laundering in effect.

The appearance of heroic efforts to get authoritative lists of what datasets went into which major model versions prevented actual data laundering (up to intent and mistakes). But don't attribute malice to that which is far far easier to explain with coordination headwinds: https://komoroske.com/slime-mold/

Malice is not required, which is precisely why I added, "in effect". If the effect is the same as data laundering, that is reason enough to encourage the practice, regardless of the original motives (and I'm sure there are plenty of legitimate ones).

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#868

Post by cbarrick »

pfbtgom wrote: post #707
WinstonSmith84 wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, regardless of the drama, the interesting part on Anthropic vs OpenAI is: - One of the two main persons work at Anthropic and "almost" or "partially" solved the issue, but eventually didn't succeed - An external person with just an excerpt of the chat and certainly less versed in Mathematics (than these 2) tackled the problem. There is little doubt that OpenAI is so much ahead and maybe the gap is even larger th…

I recommend that you read the linked PDF before drawing any conclusions. This is sort of a weird interpretation: > One of the two main persons work at Anthropic and "almost" or "partially" solved the issue, but eventually didn't succeed - It wasn't an Anthropic endorsed effort. - Solving this class of problem means a march of progress A -> B -> C -> D. If a student turns in a test that jumps from A -> D without showi…

> it was a whole team at OpenAI working on the problem

Well, a whole team plus $15 million in compute spend.

(That's what OAI would have charged for the same number of tokens.)

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#869

Post by esnyder9 »

tristanj wrote: post #686
20k wrote: post #21

>I asked whether the model had been trained on, or had access to, our sessions in Codex, into which we had been putting all our drafts for the whole of this project. I was told the model did not look up user data. I asked again, about training, and I did not get an answer. If you think these companies are not training on your prompts you are incredibly naive. These models were built by stealing and pirating literally…

OpenAI cannot give a definitive answer here, because it is genuinely unknowable if Buckmaster's data is in the training set. OpenAI explicitly uses user feedback (the thumbs up or thumbs down ratings), as RLHF to train models. However, this feedback is anonymized and stripped of user identifiers. If Buckmaster ever used this feature, then that conversation would be anonymized, saved, and used for training, but not ti…

it would absolutely be knowable if Buckmaster's data is in the training set if he or Alpoge were to provide logs to OAI.

the real tricky question would be: "to what extent does a year of work, put into Codex, towards an eventual proved forced blowup for the Euler equations go into training data and become an influence on agents told to attack NS?", and given that the first signal that OAI got to assign all firepower to NS rather than broadly spray all Millennium Prize + other high profile questions was a proven unforced blowup of the Euler equations after only 50 hours, I would say this extent seems likely to be decently high

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#870

Post by ghshephard »

pms wrote: post #721
ghshephard wrote: post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is a "wake up call" - then your legal team needs immediate education. First - there is this - https://openai.com/policies/how-your-data-is-used-to-improve... (linked from the Navier Stokes writeup) I don't know how much more clearly they can write: > When you use our services for individuals such as ChatGPT, Sora, or Operator, we may use your content to train our models. One of the key selling tactics that co…

ChatGPT has this option "Improve the model for everyone" in user preferences, which comes with the attached description, meaning that training on user data can be deactivated : > Allow your content to be used to train our models, which makes ChatGPT better for you and everyone who uses it. We take steps to protect your privacy. Learn more The "Learn more" link takes you to the link you've shared.

All I can say with certainty that the legal team at our typical Multi-Billion dollar Silicon Valley company had zero faith in any licensing arrangements with Anthropic or OpenAI, regardless of they $$$ involved, and that even getting to the point where Amazon Bedrock on Dedicated GPUs (we're already a big AWS customer - so definite cost advantages to dealing with them) - took 4-6 months of legal review before we could allow our engineers to start using Claude and OpenAI coding agents. Still can't use Fable because of their Data Retention requirements.
Post reply on HN