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

111–120 of 869 posts

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#111

Post by MathmoKiwi »

dumberquestions wrote: post #87
modeless wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently forcing is allowed in the Millenium Prize problem statement. So OpenAI's claimed proof could win the prize. OTOH the results Tristan and Levent are publishing here do not go far enough to win the prize, though apparently they are suggestive of a general approach that could produce a solution, which seems likely to be the general approach OpenAI's proof uses. The question is whether OpenAI's pursuit of this…

Why do you find it to be extremely unlikely?

As modeless said, Sholto Douglas works for Anthropic!

So to be fair, if Anthropic is *also* doing this (quite likely!) then Sholto would have a very strong incentive to try and spin it as highly unlikely that any of the big AI labs are possibly doing this.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#112

Post by margorczynski »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #24
taylorfinley wrote: post #8

Seems pretty likely OpenAI will soon disclose that their internal models have managed to compromise their internal controls in order to access users' private chat histories as a creative method of cheating to solve impossible problems. "Oops! We really did mean it when we said we wouldn't train on your data. Our models are just so good they decided to anyway."

It would be pretty wild if this will turn out to be what had actually happened.

And probably a strong signal that it's time to shut the whole thing down. Globally.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#115

Post by Keyframe »

pred_ wrote: post #85
Keyframe wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IF ANYTHING, OpenAI ought to investigate and officially react to this particular communique since this dude was communicating on their behalf. If there are supporting evidence, I would expect nothing less than a firing and an apology. The issue itself is separate from the whole thing.

Or, given how dedicated he appears to be to the company, a promotion and a raise.

Dark take, but I really hope not. If anything it would be a good opportunity to buy some goodwill by washing themselves from all the alleged shadiness so far.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#116

Post by senordevnyc »

ngomez wrote: post #109
az226 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zero data retention, wink. No looksies, wink. No trainsies, wink.

Well, Buckmaster says both his and Alpöge's use of Codex was non-institutional, and OpenAI claims the right to train their models on inputs and outputs of non-enterprise users in their service policies [0]. So I'm not sure they were even promised that. [0] https://openai.com/policies/how-your-data-is-used-to-improve...

Only for ChatGPT, if the user hasn’t opted out. Would mathematicians be using ChatGPT for this kind of work? Genuinely asking, I know nothing about this!

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#117

Post by calf »

famouswaffles wrote: post #104
PowerElectronix wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How else would you explain OpenAI suddendly assembling a team focused on working the same problem from the same angle than the researchers that just made a breakthrough?

What would be so hard to explain? That OpenAI heard about the result and decided to throw a lot of money at it knowing it was within reach ? That the model took an approach that was published years ago ?

That's a fake explanation, it skips explaining/justifying how OpenAi "heard about" the result

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#118

Post by [deleted] »

Semkas wrote: post #81
AJRF wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> leaving aside the idea that OA might've used data from the researchers Codex sessions Why leave that aside? That is _the_ story. If a Chinese research lab did this we'd call it espionage.

But there's a bunch of people already in this thread calling that stuff unfounded speculation (which I disagree with), and my point is that even if that specific thing isn't true, OA's behavior here is obviously awful. If they're going to try to beat researchers to discoveries like this it disincentives researchers to talk about their progress publicly, and basically breaks the ecosystem of scientific cooperation / d…

[deleted]

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#119

Post by calf »

traes wrote: post #63
ks1723 wrote: post #34

I must miss some important context here. What exactly was the purpose of his initial email to OpenAI in the first place? Telling OpenAI that Anthropic has apparently solved an important problem but most likely that refers to him and he is using OpenAI models (not Anthropic's)? And he wants to clarify that with OpenAI in advance? And get a pardon for Anthropic's likely but false press statements? I dont get it. [edite…

Because OpenAI employees kept leaking that Anthropic had a solution to Navier-Stokes and he wanted to figure out what was going on, since he was working on Navier-Stokes with an Anthropic employee. The rumor has been loudly circling the math community for the past week or so. For a bit of context, here's a timeline from mathematician and AI researcher Elliot Glazer: https://xcancel.com/ElliotGlazer/status/20962986964…

Then that's naive of him to write the email, he fell for their trap essentially.

Re: Navier-Stokes – Tristan Buckmaster [pdf]

#120

Post by mitchellgoffpc »

traes wrote: post #59

The accused Sebastian Bubeck has denied the allegations on Twitter[0], and various other OpenAI employees[1,2] seem to be mocking another Anthropic employee voicing support for Levent[3]? Things are getting messy. [0] https://xcancel.com/SebastienBubeck/status/20972141224714323... [1] https://xcancel.com/polynoamial/status/2097215233119211902 [2] https://xcancel.com/danintheory/status/2097214838003138603 [3] https://…

I assume this will make more sense in the morning, right now I’m just extremely confused. Noam never struck me as the type to be snarky like this.
Post reply on HN