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

More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

mathstodon.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 845 posts

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#291

Post by marcosdumay »

derangedHorse wrote: post #132
rnijveld wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say there is a significant difference between AI discovering this completely on its own versus AI creating the finishing connecting part by connecting relevant data. Maybe this claim is too strong, but if part of it is true then the claims that OpenAI have made would be too strong as well. To me it would feel more like how LLMs seem to work for me personally: incapable of unique work, but very capable of capt…

> capturing large amounts of data and connecting the dots. This is what research is; collecting data and connecting the dots.

It's not collecting other people's data and claiming it's your own.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#292

Post by iamgopal »

dgellow wrote: post #286
sashank_1509 wrote: post #266

Both things can be true: 1. OpenAI when using your chats in pretraining is improving its model’s intuition. The model parameter size is massive, and while the data is OOM larger it is plausible that model remembers stuff about chats that improves its latent representation. 2. During RL on verifiable math and massive compute, the model discovers techniques and connections to solve math problems that are superhuman and…

I feel that we don’t praise Lean enough. AFAIU it’s what enables LLMs to brute force those problems

True, but could humans cross pollinating lean x prolog x A* ( or any search algorithm) could have solved such math problems with super computer ?

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#293

Post by ozgung »

sashank_1509 wrote: post #266

Both things can be true: 1. OpenAI when using your chats in pretraining is improving its model’s intuition. The model parameter size is massive, and while the data is OOM larger it is plausible that model remembers stuff about chats that improves its latent representation. 2. During RL on verifiable math and massive compute, the model discovers techniques and connections to solve math problems that are superhuman and…

If your rumor is true, what we are witnessing is a giant paradigm shift rather than individual incidents. Mathematicians were the first victims of super-intelligence.

Of course it’s not an endless source. They had to burn millions of dollars to solve a single problem.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#295

Post by glitchc »

bertonvv wrote: post #130

I've been wondering whether AI really is improving rapidly at open problems or we're being fooled. - OpenAI invites researchers to use their models, in fact giving at least 100,000 researchers free access[1], but there are also those that pay - Internal OpenAI models are reportedly solving open problems at a surprisingly fast rate[2] - But researchers will typically work on open problems. A researcher who is using Co…

The pudding is in the proof. The field is mathematics, the proof can be rigorously verified. If there is a flaw, OpenAI is out to lunch. If the proof is valid, OpenAI has produced something new.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#296

Post by robotpepi »

square_usual wrote: post #184
cbarrick wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people are focusing on the training data issue too much. If the data was contaminated, I can still blame that on negligence. But, at least with the Navier-Stokes solution, it's clear [^1] that they learned that Alpöge and Buckmaster were getting close to a solution and learned of the general approach they were taking. Only after learning the secret to cracking the problem did they send the first prompt. What…

> and learned of the general approach they were taking. Only after learning the secret to cracking the problem did they send the first prompt. Do you have any evidence of this? They don't dispute the timeline, but they never said they knew what Levant/Buckmaster were doing.

It's in OpenAI's first announcement that they had solved the problem.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#297

Post by dgellow »

iamgopal wrote: post #292
dgellow wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that we don’t praise Lean enough. AFAIU it’s what enables LLMs to brute force those problems

True, but could humans cross pollinating lean x prolog x A* ( or any search algorithm) could have solved such math problems with super computer ?

I cannot say, math research isn’t my domain of expertise, I’m just trying to follow along :)

But I find it interesting that Lean, a validator/compiler made by humans, is what enables those discoveries. But somehow all the praise goes to the models

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#298

Post by glitchc »

marcosdumay wrote: post #291
derangedHorse wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> capturing large amounts of data and connecting the dots. This is what research is; collecting data and connecting the dots.

It's not collecting other people's data and claiming it's your own.

The authors were referenced.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#299

Post by derangedHorse »

marcosdumay wrote: post #291
derangedHorse wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> capturing large amounts of data and connecting the dots. This is what research is; collecting data and connecting the dots.

It's not collecting other people's data and claiming it's your own.

Going back to the specific topic at hand, who claimed data as their own when it wasn't? I don't see the interpretation of OpenAI solving the unsolved problem as claiming data that isn't theirs. I also don't recall them mentioning a particular method used in the solution, that was created by someone else, as theirs.

Re: More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math

#300

Post by robotpepi »

Legend2440 wrote: post #2

This is a really weak claim. The evidence they offer is just "someone somewhere says they had a discussion with AI about the topic at some point". They don't even claim to have had a proof, only to have been working on it.

> They don't even claim to have had a proof, only to have been working on it.

Yeah, the guys who solved it for Euler and in the hypoviscous case, with the same technique that worked for full Navier--Stokes. They were "just" working on it.

Post reply on HN