10 ms·

1) OpenAI and Buckmaster did not solve the same problem. Per https://x.com/IlinVasily29521/status/2097554700321329393 https://x.com/IlinVasily29521/status/20975

1) OpenAI and Buckmaster did not solve the same problem. Per https://x.com/IlinVasily29521/status/2097554700321329393 https://x.com/IlinVasily29521/status/2097554700321329393 , here is a breakdown of who solved what. Tristan + Levent: 3D incompressible Euler with forcing OpenAI: 3D incompressible Euler without forcing OpenAI: Navier-Stokes with forcing No one: Navier-Stokes without forcing Euler equations = Navier-Stokes without viscosity. Forcing means external force. Absence of viscosity and presence of external force make blowup easier to construct. Tristan+Levent ticked the weakest case, OpenAI ticked the two next weakest, then the final case is unsolved. Only the last two are eligible for the Millennium Prize. The Navier-Stokes general case remains unsolved. Navier-Stokes has an extra viscosity term compared to Euler, which makes the problem noticeably harder to find a blowup. They are not the same problem. 2) The approach both chose to use (by Luis and Diego) was published in 2023 and is included in every frontier model's training dataset. An AI model could independently choose the same route as Luis and Diego, without access to Buckmaster's work. 3) You mischaracterized OpenAI's statement. They issued a blanket denial on using Buckmaster's Codex data from after July 3. "We can say categorically that it is impossible for Dr. Buckmaster’s Codex prompts over the last two months to have influenced the system in any way, including training. After investigating, we can say with full confidence that no user inputs past July 3rd could have influenced this system in any way.” July 3 was the training cutoff date for the model that solved Navier-Stokes. No user data after that date influenced the model. 4) Buckmaster and Alpöge found their blow-up for 3D incompressible Euler with forcing on August 15 https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf , over a month after the model training cutoff point. They stated they did not have real progress prior to this point.

atakan_gurkan 23d ago
For your point 2. It is of course possible, but it is highly unlikely if I understood Buckmaster's statements correctly.
- tristanj 23d ago
  Not when you have 10,000 concurrent agents attacking the problem. OpenAI brute-forced their way to a solution. They likely tried every approach in published literature, which includes the 2023 approach by Luis and Diego.
deleted 23d ago
[deleted]
elteto 23d ago
This is what Terence Tao said of Buckmaster’s and Alpolge approach: “There does not seem to be anything in principle preventing the methods from extending all the way to Navier-Stokes, and there is even a non-negligible chance that the forcing term could be eliminated entirely, although there are an enormous number of technical difficulties that would ensue in implementing that program. At this point, I would not be surprised if one could batter out such an extension by pouring an enormous amount of compute and AI assistance at such a task…” Pouring infinite AI resources into it is exactly what OpenAI did.
roosterIllusi0n 22d ago
Everyone involved with openAI will flat out lie to your face and will fund media campaigns to promote their lies. OpenAI made personal threats. That is a sign that they were doing something wrong and are desperate to control the narrative. It is laughable to claim they are not datamining users when datamining users is their strongest advantage over open models. In the end, there is no reason to care about openAI or credit them with anything. Tools are not attributed, people are. The best solution is for universities to be universities and provide llms for students and staff to use. Any university allowing students to use cloud based AI has failed.
amazingman 22d ago
And what of the personal threats?
- tristanj 22d ago
  You realize 1) There were no personal threats, you're being deceptive here and 2) Bushmaster threatened Bubeck (of OpenAI) first? Bushmaster redacted 90% of their conversation to stir up as much FUD as possible, but you can review Bubeck's later statements to fill in what actually happened. From the statement: I said that if OpenAI released its result in the way proposed I would go public with what happened. Translation: If you release this result, I will go public with my concerns that you plagiarized my work. The reply was, “Why would you ruin your career?” I replied that I am an academic, and asked why he thought going public would ruin my career. Translation: Typically, making unfounded accusations of plagiarism will ruin your career. Why would you do that to yourself? Bushmaster then redacts 90% of what Bubeck says next (because it would detract from the narrative he's trying to portray) and only includes the most inflammatory line. The reply was, “If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice.” Translation: You were the closest person to solving the problem. Even though we solved it and you didn't, we offered you to give you the Millennium prize and put your name on the paper, so long as you remove your coauthor (who works at Anthropic). We offered you this because we're being nice. Since you don't want to be nice (by accusing us of doing things we did not do), we're not going to be nice (and offer you the prize/co-authorship of the paper). When you fill in the context, it's clear: 1) there is no personal threat like you claim and 2) this is hardly a threat, on a scale of threats you can make, this scores a 1.5 out of 10. For context: Bushmaster is pissed at OpenAI because they sniped a problem he was toiling on for the past year, so during this conversation I believe emotions are quite heated. I don't claim this interpretation is 100% accurate, but if you disagree, do reply with a better one yourself.
  - xigoi 22d ago
    > Translation: You were the closest person to solving the problem. Even though we solved it and you didn't, we offered you to give you the Millennium prize and put your name on the paper, so long as you remove your coauthor (who works at Anthropic). We offered you this because we're being nice. So nice of them to give an ultimatum where the paper will be published in an academically dishonest way no matter what you choose.

atakan_gurkan 23d ago

For your point 2. It is of course possible, but it is highly unlikely if I understood Buckmaster's statements correctly.

tristanj 23d ago
Not when you have 10,000 concurrent agents attacking the problem. OpenAI brute-forced their way to a solution. They likely tried every approach in published literature, which includes the 2023 approach by Luis and Diego.

deleted 23d ago

[deleted]

elteto 23d ago

This is what Terence Tao said of Buckmaster’s and Alpolge approach: “There does not seem to be anything in principle preventing the methods from extending all the way to Navier-Stokes, and there is even a non-negligible chance that the forcing term could be eliminated entirely, although there are an enormous number of technical difficulties that would ensue in implementing that program. At this point, I would not be surprised if one could batter out such an extension by pouring an enormous amount of compute and AI assistance at such a task…” Pouring infinite AI resources into it is exactly what OpenAI did.

roosterIllusi0n 22d ago

Everyone involved with openAI will flat out lie to your face and will fund media campaigns to promote their lies. OpenAI made personal threats. That is a sign that they were doing something wrong and are desperate to control the narrative. It is laughable to claim they are not datamining users when datamining users is their strongest advantage over open models. In the end, there is no reason to care about openAI or credit them with anything. Tools are not attributed, people are. The best solution is for universities to be universities and provide llms for students and staff to use. Any university allowing students to use cloud based AI has failed.

amazingman 22d ago

And what of the personal threats?

tristanj 22d ago
You realize 1) There were no personal threats, you're being deceptive here and 2) Bushmaster threatened Bubeck (of OpenAI) first? Bushmaster redacted 90% of their conversation to stir up as much FUD as possible, but you can review Bubeck's later statements to fill in what actually happened. From the statement: I said that if OpenAI released its result in the way proposed I would go public with what happened. Translation: If you release this result, I will go public with my concerns that you plagiarized my work. The reply was, “Why would you ruin your career?” I replied that I am an academic, and asked why he thought going public would ruin my career. Translation: Typically, making unfounded accusations of plagiarism will ruin your career. Why would you do that to yourself? Bushmaster then redacts 90% of what Bubeck says next (because it would detract from the narrative he's trying to portray) and only includes the most inflammatory line. The reply was, “If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice.” Translation: You were the closest person to solving the problem. Even though we solved it and you didn't, we offered you to give you the Millennium prize and put your name on the paper, so long as you remove your coauthor (who works at Anthropic). We offered you this because we're being nice. Since you don't want to be nice (by accusing us of doing things we did not do), we're not going to be nice (and offer you the prize/co-authorship of the paper). When you fill in the context, it's clear: 1) there is no personal threat like you claim and 2) this is hardly a threat, on a scale of threats you can make, this scores a 1.5 out of 10. For context: Bushmaster is pissed at OpenAI because they sniped a problem he was toiling on for the past year, so during this conversation I believe emotions are quite heated. I don't claim this interpretation is 100% accurate, but if you disagree, do reply with a better one yourself.
- xigoi 22d ago
  > Translation: You were the closest person to solving the problem. Even though we solved it and you didn't, we offered you to give you the Millennium prize and put your name on the paper, so long as you remove your coauthor (who works at Anthropic). We offered you this because we're being nice. So nice of them to give an ultimatum where the paper will be published in an academically dishonest way no matter what you choose.