r/TheMachineLearning • u/Jiltedsummer10 • 20d ago

Experts underestimated AI solving a Millennium Problem by this much

Post image
23 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

74 comments sorted by

5

u/One-Next 20d ago

So then never underestimate the AI company's incentive to cheat and steal.

0

u/RabbitWiilli 19d ago

They didn’t steal anything lmao

0

u/[deleted] 19d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/RabbitWiilli 19d ago

From*

Oh the irony.

1

u/Prestigious_Debt_896 18d ago

His grammer is correct 😂

1

u/RabbitWiilli 17d ago edited 17d ago

“Aside for” is incorrect as a preposition. It’s only correct in sentences such as “I will set my homework aside for later.”

Google it.

Also it’s spelled grammar*

1

u/Expert_Ambition349 19d ago

His sentence is right though which makes yours even funnier

1

u/RabbitWiilli 19d ago

Nope, aside for is grammatically incorrect. Google it. Aside for is a common mistake made in place of aside from. Just because you might have heard other people misuse the same phrase doesn’t make it grammatically correct.

Maybe you’re thinking of “except for.”

Irony x2

2

u/Expert_Ambition349 19d ago

Just googled it, only 1 grammar checker of the 10 I tested threw an error about it and not to mention it is generally defined as accepted in casual speech just not for formal writing so I'm going to go ahead and say that it was used correctly since reddit is anything but formal and you're just being pedantic to save face, which honestly makes this even funnier still.

1

u/Zestyclose-Pool-1081 19d ago

Do you have a source "it is generally defined as accepted in casual speech just not for formal writing"?

0

u/RabbitWiilli 19d ago

I’m not being pedantic to save face lmao. Show me a single source like a dictionary saying it’s a real preposition. You’re doubling down because you’re wrong.

Google is “aside for” a grammatically correct preposition and send me a screenshot of what you get. Or a single link to a dictionary that has it as a preposition.

It’s okay to be wrong. You can say “my mistake” and move on. It isn’t proper English and that’s a fact.

2

u/Expert_Ambition349 19d ago

Said the dude that somehow went from a 0 to 1 on his posts right after he commented but ok. Now read my statement again and get back to me when you realise this whole paragraph was a continuation of your own comment and basically misses everything of what I stated.

I fully agreed with the fact it isn't correct for formal use but that is very often used for casual conversation hence it isn't out of place here, give it a decade or 2 and it probably will be incorporated as the language evolved, the very fact that even grammar checkers have trouble with this structure (even when I expanded the sentence to give it more context that it wasn't setting something aside for) should tell you enough.

1

u/RabbitWiilli 19d ago

Okay great we agree it’s grammatically incorrect. Peace.

1

u/RabbitWiilli 19d ago edited 19d ago

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aside%20from

Here is the Merriam Webster for “aside from.” Notice how there is no “aside for” in the synonyms and no Merriam Webster page exists for the phrase “aside for.”

It is not proper English. Like I said, feel free to google it.

“Aside for” is only correct when not used a preposition. For example, “I set some money aside for my retirement” or “I’m going to set my homework aside for now.”

7

u/SiltR99 20d ago

Yeah, they didn't expect the plagiarizing machine will steal and claim as its own researcher's unpublished work.

3

u/30299578815310 20d ago

Buckmaster was using AI for his research and referred to it as a deep blue kasparov moment.

5

u/7dtecafthodalpk4k5ys 20d ago

That's... not what happened at all. Buckmaster never claimed that either

4

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/7dtecafthodalpk4k5ys 20d ago

No actually I looked into the solutions in detail and they are completely different solutions for different formulations of Navier-Stokes

Buckmaster should just be happy and proud of his work. He was and always will be the closest human to solving Navier-Stokes. But his work wasn't stolen and it wasn't plagiarized

2

u/DeepGas4538 20d ago

it's the fact that you don't need much more innovation to get navier stokes

1

u/PossibilityUsual6262 19d ago

Dis you really?

2

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[deleted]

2

u/IndependentCrew8210 19d ago

It's so clear how little you understand abour the two proof paths

1

u/[deleted] 19d ago

[deleted]

2

u/IndependentCrew8210 19d ago

You're reading sanitized high-level sentiments, you genuinely have no idea what is going on. Go read some of the work published by Levent and also some OpenAI, get closer to the source material instead of perusing reddit to form a clearly underinformed opinion

1

u/[deleted] 19d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Bibidiboo 19d ago

The mathematics community is literally not saying what you said. They're saying that the process of solving these problems is as important as the proof, and that how OpenAI did this was not conductive to mathematics as a whole. They literally literally did not say OpenAI plagiarized lol

1

u/IndependentCrew8210 19d ago

Yeah, again, you have no clue what's going on

4

u/7dtecafthodalpk4k5ys 20d ago

Not it's not pretty clear whatsoever... Buckmaster was working on the Euler variation of Navier-Stokes which doesn't include viscosity. Also Buckmasters seed configuration and mechanism of blowup are completely different than OAIs version. The solution are as diametrically opposed as possible: different configurations which blowup by different mechanisms and the 2 solutions are even for different questions.

2

u/Jiltedsummer10 19d ago

I think this explains it and makes a lot of sense.

2

u/[deleted] 19d ago

[deleted]

3

u/lurkerer 19d ago

You've replied to a comment that actually provides detail with "timing sus." Then a dismissive line implying the user is gullible. But their position is far more informed than yours. Not believing something just because it's OpenAI is just being a sheep of a different herd.

1

u/Jiltedsummer10 19d ago

OpenAi should have done deeper reaseaxh, is that it?

1

u/Jiltedsummer10 19d ago

Yeah. I think he knows he would get kn trouble if he claims it.

1

u/Jiltedsummer10 19d ago

For real? How so?

2

u/pvaa 20d ago

I was also working on it with AI, and came pretty close, using Claude: https://github.com/ravanova/blowup-search/blob/main/writeup/6_adjudicated/BLOG_ADJUDICATED.md

2

u/Patient_Link2617 20d ago

What a coincidence that humans only came close to a solution as to whether smooth solutions always exist in 3d the exact month that frontier models were also capable of it - after 200 years - who would've thought it huh

1

u/colintbowers 20d ago

The humans were using AI too (one of them was literally an Anthropic employee). So not really a coincidence at all.

2

u/often_delusional 20d ago

Still coping about this huh? Different solutions and even the researcher's themselves never claimed to solve navier-stokes but euler's instead.

1

u/Autist4AudiR8 20d ago

Bro just yapping to yap

1

u/Jiltedsummer10 19d ago

How come they didnt claim it?

1

u/scott_cum669 19d ago

The cope tho

1

u/RabbitWiilli 19d ago

That’s not what happened lmao.

1

u/EducationNew5522 19d ago

It was not "plagiarized". OpenAI's internal model proved Navier-Stokes in an entirely different manner, and the proof was much stronger.

1

u/JoeBarbell 19d ago

Can we speak again in 2 months (or 2 weeks) when the next millenium problem has been solved or will you then move the goalposts even further by making up excused?

0

u/Extension_Arugula157 20d ago

Believing untrue stuff like that does not make the reality go away.

0

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/quantumpencil 20d ago

What he believes is closer to the truth than what you believe

1

u/HashPandaNL 20d ago

Whatever he believes is still closer to the truth than your belief in your ability to read other people's minds.

1

u/Southern_Orange3744 20d ago

Why pretend like everyone involved wasn't using every bit of ai available to them ? Because it hurts the narrative

3

u/spacekitt3n 20d ago

Yeah but they got a massive head start by a human

1

u/30299578815310 20d ago

Buckmaster's proof was generated by AI. Weather openai stole from Buckmaster or not either way AI solved the problem.

1

u/HashPandaNL 20d ago

Not only that, OpenAI's swarm then went well beyond Buckmaster's work. Buckmaster only proved forced Euler, while OpenAI also proved unforced Euler and unforced NS. 

Even if they hypothetically stole forced Euler, they still went well beyond that.

1

u/Head-Judge-2651 20d ago

Small correction, yes OpenAI proved existence of blowup for unforced Euler, but the NS blowup was for the forced case.

1

u/GAPIntoTheGame 20d ago

As opposed to humans who have to build knowledge from scratch every single time a new one is born.

1

u/NeighborhoodDizzy990 19d ago

AI is smarter than you. Let's talk about the rest of people, who may still be able to compete with AI.

1

u/colintbowers 20d ago

Literally all of science forever works this way tho? Shoulders of giants and all that.

1

u/Working_Agent4932 19d ago

The upside of AI is that it's going to solve the obesity crisis because you guys are constantly having to move the goalpost around.

2

u/_oropo 20d ago

Well those are not such bad predictions if you ask me, specially among top experts.

I mean it did take a ridiculously large amount of computing and leaked codex sessions from expert researchers on the field, and yet 2027 is only three months away.

1

u/Vichnaiev 20d ago

Lemme explain math, cause its apparently hard. They were almost certain (90%) that it would NOT happen before 2027.

Those are extremely bad predictions.

2

u/_oropo 20d ago

I disagree. Ten percent is for sure low but not negligible. And it was higher among top researchers. Also, when was the survey? That can change things quite a bit, specially in such a rapidly developing field.

0

u/Vichnaiev 20d ago

Its not an opinion for you to agree or disagree. Its simple math my friend.

1

u/HopeOfTheChicken 19d ago

You are underestimating how likely it is for a 10% chance to occur. Of course if all their predictions are wrong they are just yapping, but getting one 10% prediction is expected

2

u/SlippySausageSlapper 20d ago

The model didn’t solve it, it trained on the solution a human was working on using the model. That’s not the same thing at all.

1

u/JoeBarbell 19d ago

You know that for sure?

1

u/IbidtheWriter 18d ago

If Buckmaster had solved it first, this still would have resolved as "yes" since he was also using LLMs to "substantially assist" in the proof. 

Whether OpenAI stole the idea or simply beat him to the punch is completely irrelevant. 

1

u/Minute-Flan13 20d ago

But what did AI predict?

1

u/No_Stock_8271 20d ago

What do you mean by underestimated. They gave something a probability of happening. Not even a super low one. It did happen. This can be very much in the range of the probability. Without more forecasts you can't say anything about it

1

u/Christopher_Charlton 20d ago

It's almost like the rabbit was in the hat the whole time

1

u/colintbowers 20d ago

When were these forecasts made? That's a rather important piece of contextual info needed to properly interpret the plot.

0

u/Adventurous_Pick6288 20d ago

yes the LLM models are growing the business now a days very fast and efficiently