5 ms·

This conclusion is flawed. It's unclear at this point if OpenAI's model or employees actually looked at or stole the author's data. Having worked at large compa

This conclusion is flawed. It's unclear at this point if OpenAI's model or employees actually looked at or stole the author's data. Having worked at large companies before, I'm leaning towards no, since very few employees have access to that data. And simply knowing a problem can be solved is half the battle.

dbdr 1mo ago
From Buckmaster's text: The route to the Clay problem through a smooth force, options c and d in Fefferman’s statement of the problem, is the route Luis and Diego opened and the one Levent and I had quietly chosen to attack. Almost nobody else I know of was working on it. It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement. When I heard “forced,” it was a bright red flag. This is much more than the knowledge than the problem can be solved, it's also the specific, non-obvious approach to solving it. That's much more damning for OpenAI, if confirmed.
- Keyframe 1mo ago
  [flagged]
- tristanj 1mo ago
  That's a stretch. The Luis and Diego paper was published in 2023 and is included in every frontier model's training dataset. An AI model could independently choose the same path route as Luis and Diego, without access to Buckmaster and Alpöge’s work. And the article states "an insane amount of compute had been used," which implies OpenAI brute-forced their way to a solution. I.e. they searched for every paper published on Navier-Stokes and exhaustively attempted every approach. Such an approach would lead them to a solution. There is not enough information at this time to reach a conclusion. The best option is to wait for statements from both sides, then reevaluate.
  - mishellaneous 1mo ago
    > An AI model could independently choose the same path route as Luis and Diego, without access to Buckmaster and Alpöge’s work. the post you were replying to quotes Buckmaster specifically denying this: "It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement." > And the article states "an insane amount of compute had been used," which implies OpenAI brute-forced their way to a solution. I.e. they searched for every paper published on Navier-Stokes and exhaustively attempted every approach. Such an approach would lead them to a solution. "implies" is a surprising choice of word here. that's certainly one interpretation of "an insane amount of compute had been used". what came to my mind, considering Buckmaster's statement that the AI would not head down this specific path on its own, is, though, that they prompted it in this specific direction and then used an insane amount of compute. this seems consistent as well with these other statements: > Over the course of the call, as members of their team sent Sebastien corrections and details over their internal chat, it emerged that an entire team had been working on the problem, that this was one of a number of things that was tried, that work had started on the unforced problem, that the team first set the model on easier problems, including Euler (...)
    - shrx 1mo ago
      > "It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement." Can they back up this statement somehow?
      - mishellaneous 1mo ago
        yes, this is ultimately nothing but a claim. Buckmaster did also mention, for example, that a team of people was employed to solve the problem, which supports this claim. but that is another claim whose veracity could also be questioned. but at some point we must trust other people, unless we can be satisfied with only believing what we personally see. (also, IMO, the coincidence of both discoveries in time is pretty suspicious. this one doesn't need you to trust many people i guess)
    - golol 1mo ago
      >"It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement." To be honest, he was referring to routes (c) and (d) to the millenium problem, as far as I understand no more specific. Which is 2/4 routes.
  - Davidzheng 1mo ago
    Please don't say brute forced. It sounds like some form of denial or something. Compute for hard problems drops with models--it just means they threw a huge amount of compute. There's (idk about NS specifically so maybe it's exception) no real way to "brute force" a math proof [ok you can enumerate proofs if you can wait until heat death ] Sorry for random rant but I don't think these statements help your point
- seeall 1mo ago
  I want to point out that almost all previous AI discoveries in math were made in almost the same way. The ideas were there in the community, but weren't considered mainstream/worth pushing forward. Read Tao's comments on the unit distance problem, for example (sry I can't find a link right now). OpenAI said there [1]: > The method by which the problem was solved is also notable. The proof brings unexpected, sophisticated ideas from algebraic number theory to bear on an elementary geometric question. [1] https://openai.com/index/model-disproves-discrete-geometry-conjecture/ https://openai.com/index/model-disproves-discrete-geometry-c...
johnnienaked 1mo ago
How is it unclear? The entire point of deploying models across corporate America is to train on your workflows. Eventually replacing you with digital you is why they're doing it!
Ar-Curunir 1mo ago
> And simply knowing a problem can be solved is half the battle. Have you done any mathematical research? If not, then no, knowing that a problem is solvable is not “half the battle”. Homework problems are all designed to be solvable, yet they can vary greatly in difficulty. Research mathematics is even more extreme, because, unlike with homework, you don’t know that it is solvable with the extant mathematics, and you might need to invent new maths.
- tristanj 1mo ago
  You're taking the phrase too literally. The point is that knowing a solution is possible gives you the conviction to actually find that solution. The hardest part of solving a problem is often a lack of conviction to see it through, and quitting too early. Once you know a solution exists, you can commit maximal effort towards solving it and know that your efforts are not in vain. If not for the rumors that A/ had already solved NS, OAI would likely never have pursued solving the problem with such fervour. The rumors drove OAI to assemble an entire team to crack this.
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]

dbdr 1mo ago

From Buckmaster's text: The route to the Clay problem through a smooth force, options c and d in Fefferman’s statement of the problem, is the route Luis and Diego opened and the one Levent and I had quietly chosen to attack. Almost nobody else I know of was working on it. It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement. When I heard “forced,” it was a bright red flag. This is much more than the knowledge than the problem can be solved, it's also the specific, non-obvious approach to solving it. That's much more damning for OpenAI, if confirmed.

Keyframe 1mo ago
[flagged]
tristanj 1mo ago
That's a stretch. The Luis and Diego paper was published in 2023 and is included in every frontier model's training dataset. An AI model could independently choose the same path route as Luis and Diego, without access to Buckmaster and Alpöge’s work. And the article states "an insane amount of compute had been used," which implies OpenAI brute-forced their way to a solution. I.e. they searched for every paper published on Navier-Stokes and exhaustively attempted every approach. Such an approach would lead them to a solution. There is not enough information at this time to reach a conclusion. The best option is to wait for statements from both sides, then reevaluate.
- mishellaneous 1mo ago
  > An AI model could independently choose the same path route as Luis and Diego, without access to Buckmaster and Alpöge’s work. the post you were replying to quotes Buckmaster specifically denying this: "It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement." > And the article states "an insane amount of compute had been used," which implies OpenAI brute-forced their way to a solution. I.e. they searched for every paper published on Navier-Stokes and exhaustively attempted every approach. Such an approach would lead them to a solution. "implies" is a surprising choice of word here. that's certainly one interpretation of "an insane amount of compute had been used". what came to my mind, considering Buckmaster's statement that the AI would not head down this specific path on its own, is, though, that they prompted it in this specific direction and then used an insane amount of compute. this seems consistent as well with these other statements: > Over the course of the call, as members of their team sent Sebastien corrections and details over their internal chat, it emerged that an entire team had been working on the problem, that this was one of a number of things that was tried, that work had started on the unforced problem, that the team first set the model on easier problems, including Euler (...)
  - shrx 1mo ago
    > "It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement." Can they back up this statement somehow?
    - mishellaneous 1mo ago
      yes, this is ultimately nothing but a claim. Buckmaster did also mention, for example, that a team of people was employed to solve the problem, which supports this claim. but that is another claim whose veracity could also be questioned. but at some point we must trust other people, unless we can be satisfied with only believing what we personally see. (also, IMO, the coincidence of both discoveries in time is pretty suspicious. this one doesn't need you to trust many people i guess)
  - golol 1mo ago
    >"It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement." To be honest, he was referring to routes (c) and (d) to the millenium problem, as far as I understand no more specific. Which is 2/4 routes.
- Davidzheng 1mo ago
  Please don't say brute forced. It sounds like some form of denial or something. Compute for hard problems drops with models--it just means they threw a huge amount of compute. There's (idk about NS specifically so maybe it's exception) no real way to "brute force" a math proof [ok you can enumerate proofs if you can wait until heat death ] Sorry for random rant but I don't think these statements help your point
seeall 1mo ago
I want to point out that almost all previous AI discoveries in math were made in almost the same way. The ideas were there in the community, but weren't considered mainstream/worth pushing forward. Read Tao's comments on the unit distance problem, for example (sry I can't find a link right now). OpenAI said there [1]: > The method by which the problem was solved is also notable. The proof brings unexpected, sophisticated ideas from algebraic number theory to bear on an elementary geometric question. [1] https://openai.com/index/model-disproves-discrete-geometry-conjecture/ https://openai.com/index/model-disproves-discrete-geometry-c...

johnnienaked 1mo ago

How is it unclear? The entire point of deploying models across corporate America is to train on your workflows. Eventually replacing you with digital you is why they're doing it!

Ar-Curunir 1mo ago

> And simply knowing a problem can be solved is half the battle. Have you done any mathematical research? If not, then no, knowing that a problem is solvable is not “half the battle”. Homework problems are all designed to be solvable, yet they can vary greatly in difficulty. Research mathematics is even more extreme, because, unlike with homework, you don’t know that it is solvable with the extant mathematics, and you might need to invent new maths.

tristanj 1mo ago
You're taking the phrase too literally. The point is that knowing a solution is possible gives you the conviction to actually find that solution. The hardest part of solving a problem is often a lack of conviction to see it through, and quitting too early. Once you know a solution exists, you can commit maximal effort towards solving it and know that your efforts are not in vain. If not for the rumors that A/ had already solved NS, OAI would likely never have pursued solving the problem with such fervour. The rumors drove OAI to assemble an entire team to crack this.

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]