Post

Conversation

drama summary for those confused: - Aug 15th: Tristan Buckmaster & Levent Alpöge make progress on a few important math problems - they do NOT have a proof for the $1,000,000 Millenium Prize problem. BUT, they do claim to have a proof for a similar (non-Millenium) Navier Stokes problem that could help lead the way there - Levent works at Anthropic, but this research was independent of his work there, with a mix of GPT and Claude models. Tristan is not related to Anthropic. - Early Sep: Rumor spreads to OpenAI that Anthropic has solved a major problem. Tristan emails OpenAI to clarify. without revealing the problem they solved or how they did it. - After hearing of the rumor, OpenAI started researching Navier Stokes with a new internal model. - Sep 6th: OpenAI's Sebastien Bubeck tells Tristan that they solved the $1,000,000 Millenium Prize Navier Stokes problem. The approach is very similar to Tristan & Levent's approach to the non-Millenium problem. - Tristan is suspicious of the timing, as only few others were trying this approach. OpenAI says the model didn't access his user data directly, but leaves unanswered whether Tristan's chat conversations were part of the training. - OpenAI says they would partially credit Tristan for the $1,000,000 discovery (even though Tristan did not solve the $1,000,000 problem) — but only if they remove Levent as an author, as he works for Anthropic. - Sep 8th: Tristan refuses to remove Levent, and rushes to publish their results independently. Currently unclear is whether Anthropic had a separate solution for the $1,000,000 problem, or whether the rumor was about Tristan & Levent's independent research.
Image
Quote
Hensen Juang
@basedjensen
Wow Navier-Stokes thing is getting really ugly. But from the sounds of things it looks like both labs have actually solved Navier-Stokes independently and drama aside is massive x.com/ElliotGlazer/s…
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

my personal opinion (just based on Tristan's perspective, things might change once we get Bubeck's side): - i doubt openai used Tristan's user data. it's tightly protected, and i'd be surprised if even a senior researcher had access. training takes too long and one extra
"We won't say whether your chat conversations were in the training data" is the answer that answers the question
They could not possibly have trained on it (training takes months) but the allegation is they have used the conversations to prime the agents working on the solution. However, IMO they likely did not even need to: if you give agents a focused direction (Navier Stokes) with maybe
Missing the very important part where they publicly state that they used the mathematical advances of the Spanish team of Martínez-Zoroa and Córdoba, and that they deserve the Fields Medal.
Image
What’s more interesting is that an anthropic employee was like codex better
A bit confused about how OpenAI knew that their own approach is similar to Tristan & Levent's one before Tristan have published it today.
Call me crazy but I find it hard to believe a 90 years old math problem was just randomly solved by a guy that HAPPENS to work at OpenAI, and that AI had nothing to do with it.
Quote
Lochan Maru
@lochan__maru
WHAT THE ACTUAL F*CK IS NAVIER STOKES? x.com/OpenAI/status/…
The media could not be played.
wonder if these AI companies used the user identity data to determine whose coversation data might be useful for training which capabilities.
I'm pretty sure the alleged open AI proof is about forced Navier-Stokes, so not the Clay problem
Hey calculate the odds that both parties solved this $1million dollar problem without collaboration or violation, esp vitally considering one of the parties is employed by Anthropic and that company offered to buy out the other party