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

Navier-Stokes Announcement

claymath.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 292 posts

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#221

Post by vatsachak »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #215
vatsachak wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah the AI won't replace coders or mathematicians until it can maintain codebases/knowledge long term. I actually don't think that current AI can replace any profession that requires human interaction over many weeks. This is because imo they lack long term planning abilities

I also think they overestimate how much of most jobs can be done by an LLM (a text generator!), and how much importance and reliance most companies put into soft skills, and non-linguistic understanding/feels, both during interviewing (are they Googley-enough?) and afterwards. For example, how do you reconcile return-to-work mandates with the idea that companies are going to be happy with faceless remote workers? Wha…

Yeah. Not to mention the paper-clip maximizing that RL induces in them. I had 5.6-Luna use a parser combinator lib in order to find out that it imported it but wrote its own parser, so it technically followed my instructions.

Imagine that paper-clip maximizing happening over millions of tasks.

I think we are just entering the LLM + Human era.

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#222

Post by Razengan »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #194
Razengan wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole "reputable" marker is where it gets into "True Scotsman" territory and the whole "publishing papers" thing gets called out as a racket even on HN now and then with many videos against it by former "academia" people on YouTube. The sooner AI brings down such archaic customs into a gibbering pile of protesting rubble, the better innit?

Depends. What replaces it? Does that replacement do better at keeping false claims out, or worse? Does it do better at letting true claims through, or worse?

One thing's for certain: True and false should not depend on convincing people.

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#223

Post by soerxpso »

Aissen wrote: post #219
eru wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure it actually makes a difference. OpenAI doesn't care about the million dollars in any case. And the judgement that they did it is independent of whether the Clay people agree: you can make up your own mind and so can everyone else. Though it would be funny if no one ever bothers publishing the result in an appropriate journal, and thus the prize technically can never be claimed.

> And the judgement that they did it is independent of whether the Clay people agree: you can make up your own mind and so can everyone else. No I cannot, and I'd argue most people can't either. We rely on mathematicians, peer review, and letting the scientific process run its course.

It's formalized in Lean, isn't it? Do you also rely on a community of C++ experts to tell you whether a program compiles or not?

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#224

Post by senordevnyc »

Aissen wrote: post #219
eru wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure it actually makes a difference. OpenAI doesn't care about the million dollars in any case. And the judgement that they did it is independent of whether the Clay people agree: you can make up your own mind and so can everyone else. Though it would be funny if no one ever bothers publishing the result in an appropriate journal, and thus the prize technically can never be claimed.

> And the judgement that they did it is independent of whether the Clay people agree: you can make up your own mind and so can everyone else. No I cannot, and I'd argue most people can't either. We rely on mathematicians, peer review, and letting the scientific process run its course.

Sure we can. I’m already convinced they solved it. You’re free to believe whatever you wish.

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#225

Post by adastra22 »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #187
adastra22 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Publish in academic language means accepted peer-reviewed paper.

https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-...

Not sure what your point is? When they say published they mean peer review. Regardless of what you think about publication, that's what it means.

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#226

Post by tired-turtle »

soerxpso wrote: post #223
Aissen wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the judgement that they did it is independent of whether the Clay people agree: you can make up your own mind and so can everyone else. No I cannot, and I'd argue most people can't either. We rely on mathematicians, peer review, and letting the scientific process run its course.

It's formalized in Lean, isn't it? Do you also rely on a community of C++ experts to tell you whether a program compiles or not?

"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." — Knuth, 1977

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#227

Post by famouswaffles »

vatsachak wrote: post #204
famouswaffles wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're in OpenAI's position, the PR from the group you're disrupting is rarely relevant. People from the outside will (correctly or not) look at this as "Mathematicians don't want OpenAI to solve problems to keep their status/jobs", and you'll have as much sympathy from them as every other replaced profession in human history - very little to none. Unlike AlphaFold, this technology has the potential to wholesale r…

Nah the AI won't replace coders or mathematicians until it can maintain codebases/knowledge long term. I actually don't think that current AI can replace any profession that requires human interaction over many weeks. This is because imo they lack long term planning abilities

>Nah the AI won't replace coders or mathematicians until it can maintain codebases/knowledge long term.

Okay...you understand that are training for this and it has gotten much much better at doing this over the years ? You should probably also understand that it doesn't need to be able to do this to cull the profession ?

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#228

Post by jgalt212 »

jacobrussell wrote: post #167
jgalt212 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not including salaries, OpenAI spend $20MM to make $1MM. Very on-brand for a start-up.

I don’t think solving a millennium prize problem can be reduced to some DoorDash economics of “spent Y to make X.” What if it took someone their entire professional career to solve one of these problems, would it not be worth it by the same logic?

Of course, you're right. I was making social commentary / joke.

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#229

Post by qlte »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #187
adastra22 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Publish in academic language means accepted peer-reviewed paper.

https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-...

Unless you're suggesting they should change the existing qualification criteria to accommodate a group unwilling to play by the same rules as everyone else, I'm not sure why that's relevant.

Re: Navier-Stokes Announcement

#230

Post by qlte »

Razengan wrote: post #222
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends. What replaces it? Does that replacement do better at keeping false claims out, or worse? Does it do better at letting true claims through, or worse?

One thing's for certain: True and false should not depend on convincing people.

Instead of a committee of subject matter experts they should use a more rigorous and trustworthy standard, like passing the solution to ChatGPT with the prompt "did this win?"
Post reply on HN