- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
- cross-posted to:
- news@hexbear.net
cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/9497419
The Millennium Problems are a set of the most important open problems in mathematics. so far only 2 have been solved: the Poincare Conjecture by Grigori Perelman in 2010 and today OpenAI released this https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/
The only problem is, that their AI didn’t even come up with the solution itself. Mathematicians working on the same problem recently made big strides in solving the Navier Stokes equations, and their chat logs were scraped and used in training data before they could release the proof themselves.
Here is the unpaywalled statements of the Mathematician: https://mastodon.social/@tristanbuckmaster/117233413705701198
Western AI companies have been tackling a bunch of open problems and techbro chuds cannot shut up about it, this is just Marketing and the fact they have to steal real people’s work to do so just proves it. They really want that IPO moneyyy
You must log in or # to comment.
these news site really need to research or write better.
No, Navier Stokes was not “solved”. We have been using numerical methods to solve these equations approximtely since forever. The exact analytical solutions that exist for special cases are also studied; most often, these are used as baseline for comparison against new theory , new experimental results and new computer simulations. So, we have been “solving” Navier Stokes.
What OpenAI manages to achieve is answering a very specific problem relate to Navier Stoke (sorry for hand waving, not a pure math major). It is something like: given an initial flow condition, does the Navier Stoke equation predict this flow field to blow up or it stays smooth for some finite time? Result: OpenAI manages to come up with a case where the solution blow up.
Mathematically, i bet some math geniuses can expand on this finding as like a “special property” of the Navier Stoke equations.
So no we are still far solving the whole equation analytically.
🎶plagerize Let no one’s else’s work evade your eyes So don’t shade your eyes But Plagerize Plagerize Plagerize 🎶 But of course don’t forget to call it… Research
This is interesting news but why is it in the privacy comm?
it would be a better fit for intellectualproperty community . or maybe security. i guess it sorta could be privacy. just not the way most people tend to focus on. intellectualproperty is the bigger issue. but it occured due to lack of privacy .
Why is the fact that an AI company is surveilling their users and stealing their work in a privacy comm?
surveilling users? chats are fed into the training data, I believe this is stated pretty clearly on every chat, something like "your chats are used to improve the model’
Only in certain plans and you can opt out. I assume they were smart enough to opt out but on review I couldn’t actually find evidence of that so you may be right…
this is the whole selling-point of locallama and why local models are so rigorously sought after (despite seeming excessive(seemingly needless) spending on rigs )
Somewhere down the article:
While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models.
Woah. Navier Stokes has been solved? That’s a huge deal. And fuck openai for undercutting the people who made it possible.
From what I’ve read, the Millennium prize proposition was basically “Prove it holds in all cases (sounds to me like a closed form solution), or prove it doesn’t hold in all cases”, and the proof published by OpenAI proves the latter, i.e. that Navier-Stokes does not hold in some extreme cases.
So sad that it has been solved this way. It feels stolen (even if it had not copied work)
Well “solved” is a bit of a weird way to say it. Was it proven as true, or was it disproven? Both of those change things in different ways.
Proven true that it is a stable formula, then that’s cool, and we know that issues with fluid simulations based off of that are a software and compute problem.
If it was disproven, then we learn precisely under what specific conditions nature becomes mathematically unpredictable, and then we can start developing different and better models.
My understanding is that it has only been shown to have closed form analytical solution for very simple cases. “Solved” in this case would mean doing the same for more complex geometries. It would mean finding new functions like spherical harmonics or the Bessel Function.
Pay wall
Steal their work? well, but mathematician worked a lot of years on the problem without a solution, means that their work wasn’t correct. Apart scientific papers are accessible by everyone, not only AIs. Maybe the mathematicians have to think a little more about teamwork, storing their work locally or encrypted, instead claims about copyright and AI stealing their work. But the capabillity of AIs is to be able to find interrelations between millons of datas in hours, something for what humans need decades to do the same. That is the point and also the danger of AI, it get the data it needs from everywhere and web content is open, AI don’t have any ethics or respect of copyrights, all web content is information as is. All you put online is public (or everything online) by definition, there isn’t any copyright to avoid it.
Everything AI does is with stolen data. What makes this so special?
The fact that AI had solved this problem made big noise, and was used by many to legitimize AI as a source of progress, so setting the record sttaight on how it really did is is pretty important.
Beside, solving a millenial problem is a big deal. Even if it had been solved by human researchers and it was later found that they had plagiarized other human researchers, this would’ve been noteworthy. So I would say this is pretty special.
It’s like if they wrote gta VI in notepad and Microsoft released it saying they made it… so not really different except they didn’t even let the author publish it first
