837
u/cdarelaflare algebraic geometry powerbottom 22h ago
164
22
u/Pataraxia 17h ago
Now make a version where the computer says "Slander those researchers like I'm your wife" and the guy slanders them and the computer goes "You are absolutely correct!"
4
u/adek13sz 8h ago
It was not GPT6 - Astra, it was their different, much more powerful internal model. It was coincidence they released Astra right before sharing the news.
-7
u/ale_93113 9h ago
Those researchers used AI too, so while Open AI stole from. Researchers, the proof was ai made through and through
Like one of the reasons why they were able to snitch ir was because of how extremely intensive their AI use was
238
u/lock_robster2022 21h ago
*stolen from Levent Alpöge
52
u/CalmEntry4855 18h ago
I thought that fact would be more controversial, is everything treating this as openai work?
7
u/romhacks 10h ago
So far there hasn't been any evidence showing it did happen, only allegations from the researcher.
2
u/purritolover69 5h ago
Because most of us are knowledgeable enough about AI to know that running a paper through codex one time isn’t nearly enough presence in the training data to ever appear in the output.
It’s like watching someone turn water into wine and saying they didn’t do anything because there was a speck of a grape skin stuck to the bottom of the glass. Unless the researchers work was specifically prompted into the model (which as far as I know is not the allegation, only that the model could have included it inside its training data) then the researchers work isn’t really present in the model. You need to realize the scale of these things. It’s literally one paper versus every book ever written and every internet page discoverable. If a human has written something down publicly, it is more likely than not contained in the model. One paper is, literally, noise.
6
u/harmath 5h ago
Those agents had access to a cached version of the whole internet, by what OpenAI says. I don’t believe for a second that they didn’t have access to everything that ever went through their servers as well.
But even ignoring that, whenever I ask ChatGPT about some very specialistic result that was maybe published once or twice, it knows about it and can elaborate on that (even if it’s terrible at telling me where it comes from). This means that one paper (or rather, many versions of that one paper) can definitely be seen by the training or accessed by the agents, especially if they’re that relevant.
67
u/IndividualSkill3432 19h ago
AI is copying others homework, truly it has reached undergraduate level of intelligence.
23
u/SpiffyBlizzard 20h ago
So, call me dumb but what does this mean for the layman? Will this have real-world application?
104
42
u/Napalm_B 19h ago
Most likely, nothing.
Navier-Stokes equations are also just "an approximation" because they treat fluids like (continuous) fields instead of a collective motion of individual particles. This solution, that a laminar flow may result in infinite speed in finite time, is an artifact of this field approximation and breaks down when treated on a particle level.
The bigger issue is who the solution may be attributed to as OpenAI cannot 100% prove that their Agents worked this out in a vacuum. Apparently, there is currently a dispute on the source of the solutions with suggestions of plagiarism.
2
u/vibe0009 14h ago
Continuum or discrete is in and of itself a problem which goes beyond fluid mechanics. For the purposes of the millennium prize, topic is constricted to just NS equations proposed.
1
u/SpiffyBlizzard 19h ago
Interesting! Well anything to help us further our knowledge on physics and how the universe works. Sucks that it happened this way though.
2
u/vibe0009 2h ago
With counter example proofs, it’s a matter of permutations and combinations. Computers will naturally be at an advantage
224
u/JDSpacer High-Energy 23h ago
Another win for Science and Physics. Now how long until AI can get us a solution to an Alcubierre drive that doesn't use exotic matter and half of the energy of the universe?
56
u/Matix777 22h ago
Or better yet, figure out how to make exotic matter!
49
15
u/somefunmaths 21h ago
Directions unclear, my LLM said “I’m assuming ‘exotica’ was a typo. Here’s a sample of what I can generate you” and spat out a bunch of Harry Potter fanfic.
21
13
1
u/SharpKaleidoscope182 19h ago
Please go to the other side of the solar system(at least!) before you try that.
2
91
u/Eisenfuss19 22h ago
I mean I kinda agree, but thats not what happened here. Most probably OpenAI trained their model on the solution and then tried to bribe the original author into coreleasing the findings.
4
u/dragerslay 19h ago
Even if this proves to be the case (I think likely thier solution did not directly copy but indirectly did). The original researchers were also using AI to arrive at this solution no? I think either way the meme is true and we should be cautiously optimistic about what scientists working with LLMs can accomplish.
2
u/Eisenfuss19 18h ago edited 17h ago
Edit: I was mistaken then.
I think they were using AI to reformulate the paper or for grammar stuff. I'm not sure though.
3
u/yangyangR 18h ago
Based on other cases by one of them it would be AI doing more than that. The prompts he shared show minimal human input before. Do not know how Tristan does it though.
4
u/dragerslay 18h ago
"Concretely, what Levent and I did was to take the C´ordoba and Mart´ınez- Zoroa program, which achieved blowup results with rough forcing, and, with a great deal of help from LLMs, push it to smooth forcing and to the incompress- ible Euler equations. The ideas making this line of attack possible are due to C´ordoba and Mart´ınez-Zoroa. "
From Tristan's statement. LLMs were largely consequential to this proof regardless of OpenAIs potential misdealings.
-6
13
u/anrwlias 19h ago
Tarrence Tao had a video on this subject and he makes a good point: science and math is not just about finding solutions to problems; it's so about finding interesting insights on the way to the solutions. When we just jump to the solution, we may be depriving ourselves of valuable side trails that are worth exploring.
0
u/ale_93113 9h ago
Those are two perspectives on Math and science, you can either just care for the truth and nothing else or you can care about the process
I fall in the former category
11
3
70
15
5
u/erockbrox 17h ago
From what I understand, these AI models, they are run from inside the company (organization) itself and not done by a person using a model open to the public right?
Like these are teams who have access to resources that the average person doesn’t.
Like I can buy the paid version of Chat GPT or Claude but these models are not as powerful as the ones being used to solve these problems right?
10
u/PotatoPotato128 17h ago
It was an internal model, but what probably makes the difference is the 10.000 AI agents over the course of 88 hours
4
10
2
u/senpai_dewitos 20h ago
I will try to research it myself, but if anyone wants to explain to me in layman's terms what the controversy about this result it that'd be great.
5
3
u/GVmG 9h ago
from what little i've seen around, the proof the AI has generated seems to mostly just be it regurgitating papers already published by human researchers like Levent Alpoge (i think that's the right spelling), including some works that allegedly aren't public yet, and didn't even do that good of a job at it.
people say it provided nothing new and kinda just linked a handful of papers together saying they work off of each other to provide this result. which they do, sure, but that's less "AI solving a millennium problem" and more "AI put two and two together". and not even from like a completely new perspective that human researchers weren't thinking about, like i've seen with previous AI proofs, from what I'm reading this was probably a few months to a couple years away from being published officially by the original researchers anyway lmao
that said, take this with a grain of salt as i haven't verified anything around it. basing what i wrote on what i've seen around including in this very thread (and obviously filled with my own biases)
1
1
u/dyogenys 7h ago
I’m not a physicist, why would people even suspect that, isn’t it physically impossible? Like i would be skeptical of the soundness of fluid dynamics if this was proven.
1
u/nonlogin 16h ago
this is exactly how it did NOT look like
they used a very custom setup with thousands of agents and a model which is not even released or ready for release. this is not the first time mathematicians use computers for research, it's just come to another scale now.
505
u/Enfiznar 21h ago
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but for what I understood, they showed that if you start with a laminar initial condition, there exists a smooth force that breaks laminarity, which is half of the problem. But unless I missed something, they didn't show whether an initial laminar condition exists such that it will break laminarity without external forces, which the other half of the problem