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

How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–246 of 246 posts

Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy

#241

Post by jibal »

bananaflag wrote: post #15
jibal wrote: post #4

> OpenAI, meanwhile, says its experience with Navier-Stokes could open the door to solving puzzles with more practical relevance. “We are now able to spend millions of dollars on a problem that we really care about and that really matters: developing new materials, finding cures to diseases,” Bubeck said. “All of those things that we have been talking about for a long time—now they seem to be at our fingertips.” Eh?…

Yes it is they all require intelligence. Navier Stokes is a test of how high the intelligence is.

Intelligence is required to understand that is clueless nonsense.

Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy

#242

Post by jibal »

vbezhenar wrote: post #14
jibal wrote: post #4

> OpenAI, meanwhile, says its experience with Navier-Stokes could open the door to solving puzzles with more practical relevance. “We are now able to spend millions of dollars on a problem that we really care about and that really matters: developing new materials, finding cures to diseases,” Bubeck said. “All of those things that we have been talking about for a long time—now they seem to be at our fingertips.” Eh?…

He may be hinting that solving these complex mathematical problems will boost OpenAI clients' confidence and encourage them to spend millions of dollars on solving other complex problems.

IOW is just marketing. My point stands.

Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy

#243

Post by dekhn »

prmph wrote: post #238
ctenb wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't write a traditional proof, but a lean program, which can be used to validate proofs formally, using a computer. It's still up to humans to check wether the formalization is sensible, but the proof is correct.

Has Lean itself been proved?

I think pretty much every major mathematician has accepted that the ideas and implementation behind lean is solid.

Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy

#244

Post by SwtCyber »

rsfern wrote: 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…

[dead]

Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy

#245

Post by SwtCyber »

u1hcw9nx wrote: post #96
rsfern wrote: 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…

For any practical application, numerical solvers for Navier-Stokes already exist and do a good job. This proof is just checking the boxes for mathematicians.

[dead]

Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy

#246

Post by greggoB »

cma wrote: post #236
greggoB wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's in this statement he released (linked in the article) [0]: "I pay for the tools my group uses out of my own research funds, including footing a large bill to OpenAI." [0] https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf

API or consumer subscription? And did he share drafts of the work with anyone who fed it back in on a consumer subscription without disabling training? I have reason to believe OpenAI doesn't respect training opt outs, but there is a good chance they let something get through without an opt-out too.

> API or consumer subscription

It's not given in the statement, so I don't know

> And did he share drafts of the work with anyone who fed it back in on a consumer subscription without disabling training?

To this, the statement does have the following:

"... the one Levent and I had quietly chosen to attack"

Note his collaborator (Levent) works at Anthropic, so presumably he knows about opt ins/outs, etc.

> I have reason to believe OpenAI doesn't respect training opt outs, but there is a good chance they let something get through without an opt-out too.

I believe that, at this point in time, OpenAI's reputation speaks for itself. The stakes for success are already enormous, and the CEO has been repeatedly described by those around him as a pathological liar.

People who choose to expose anything remotely sensitive can surely be expected to know the risks of doing so.

Post reply on HN