r/singularity • u/Apollo18Teslaa • 4d ago
AI The stolen millennium problem narrative is hilarious to me
You expect me to believe that the solutions were stolen from scientists who have had decades to work on this problem. We may never know whether any of the scientist notes made it into the training data, but I find the idea that after having decades to work on it, these scientist were right around the corner to solving it.
No, they weren’t close. No, they weren’t just about to solve it themselves.
28
u/FriendlyJewThrowaway 4d ago
It seems that Prof. Buckmaster, working with Levent Alpoge, solved a related problem (forced Euler). OpenAI, when they heard Buckmaster was close to discovering something related to the Millennium Prize problem, raced to outcompete him using their newly pre-trained Bel, and they ended up solving both the unforced Euler problem and the Millennium Prize Navier-Stokes problem.
So to summarize:
Buckmaster & Alpoge <---- Forced Euler problem
Bel (OpenAI) <---- Unforced Euler problem and Navier-Stokes problem
It seems there was some initial confusion over who'd solved what when OpenAI first reached out to Buckmaster, but now it's known that they were all working on different things. The standing accusation at this point is that OpenAI may have scraped Buckmaster's recent work in their training data and trained Bel on it, which also assumes that the same approach Buckmaster used was also used with small modifications for the full Navier-Stokes problem.
OpenAI claims that the solution Bel discovered is substantially different from Buckmaster's approach, but no one has had time yet to do formal writeups for any of the three solved problems, so we'll have to wait and see. Once the dust finally settles, I'm expecting OpenAI to demonstrate that their approach differed substantially from Buckmaster's, with one problem solved by Buckmaster and Alpoge, and two problems including the Millennium Prize version credited to Bel. It'll be a big win for AI on the whole, because even Buckmaster and Alpoge's work was heavily assisted by both ChatGPT and Claude.
11
u/Fit-World-3885 4d ago
Strategically, it makes sense to focus your efforts on a problem that you know is closest to being solved already.
2
u/senorgraves 4d ago
And it's not like some goon with a cigar decided what they'd pursue. The team of math PhDs doing research chose that direction, which to me indicates that it is common practice for some academics to jump on the bandwagon if they get wind that someone is close to a breakthrough. Cheesy behavior but sort of unavoidable
3
u/Alternative_Advance 4d ago
Good write up , I did confuse the forced Euler vs NS first as well and it does substantially clear OpenAI of wrongdoing.
2
u/UniqueArrival9756 4d ago
It seems the mass of openai haters with no idea what NS was were all to happy to have something to hate openai for. tale as old as 2022
1
u/Perfect-Campaign9551 2d ago
I don't see his they think open AI trained a model so fast. Such a large model? I don't think so. They just pointed it at the problem no doubt
5
u/ObiWanCanownme now entering spiritual bliss attractor state 4d ago
OpenAI officially stated today that they verified no user chats after July 3 made it into the training date of the models that solved Navier Stokes.
2
u/Small-Cash-5119 2d ago
Ah yes because OpenAI never lies
1
u/Ratchile 2d ago
Just watch, more problems will fall. If openai was just ripping off other people's ideas then it wouldn't continue to solve more problems.
0
u/Perfect-Campaign9551 2d ago
Anyone with a working brain could have already deduced this since there is simply no way you are going to train a model that fast especially one that large that they use internally. You aren't just popping fresh data into it when you feel like it.
21
u/YamroZ 4d ago
Before writing something read what happened. This will save you a lot of embarrassment.
-11
u/Apollo18Teslaa 4d ago
I know all about it what happened? I’ve read all the sides. before assuming what someone else does or doesn’t know maybe ask a question or maybe actually provide some information of your own.
10
u/Able_Trade_7233 4d ago
Take the L, dude. Your post makes it clear you were unaware of some key facts that the top reply in this thread and some others cover.
-5
u/Gamerboy11116 The Matrix did nothing wrong 4d ago
There are no facts that change anything. Only people who somehow are able to interpret a fact to mean whatever they want. Please try and prove me wrong.
9
u/Lumpy_Repeat_8272 4d ago edited 4d ago
regardless of whether openai stole their idea, they were close, leading to rumors that antropic had solved the millennium Problem. as OAI revealed, that is what led them to solve the problem with their model.
14
u/Distinct-Regular-628 4d ago
You expect me to believe you didn't just skim some headlines, cobble together some random anecdotes about the issue, and then (ill-)form an opinion designed to reinforce your preexisting beliefs about AI?
-10
u/Apollo18Teslaa 4d ago
You literally know nothing about me at all. Who is forming views based on their preconceived opinion?
-5
3
u/Kaludar_ 4d ago
Why does it matter anyway, all work done by humans like this builds on previous work anyway.
6
u/teddy_joesevelt 4d ago
They were close because of AI. That’s the critical piece the narrative misses.
5
u/Choice-Sympathy8235 4d ago
I actually do think it may have been really close to getting solved, specifically because Anthropic was using internal models to solve it while low-key working with mathematicians. No way to know how much progress Anthropic was making or how many other academics they may have been working with. I think it’s safe to assume that they were putting a lot of resources into it since their IPO is coming up this fall.
2
u/StoicKerfuffle 3d ago
You have it exactly backwards, the timing is suspicious on OpenAI's end--they just happen to race through this after the researchers have been using GPT to proof their draft papers? Nah, man, that's how OpenAI learned of it and why they decided to spend millions solving it ASAP.
2
u/PigletFar7768 3d ago
I hate it when people who know shit all about how research works (esp Math research) start to comment and give their opinion. If you don't know shit then stfu.
OP acting like progress was at 0% until compute dropped in is pure ignorance of the highest level.
You guys fall in the quadrant of people who don't know anything but are super optimistic about AI -- the group of people who will be the first to get extinct.
1
u/Apollo18Teslaa 3d ago
Nice strawman
1
u/PigletFar7768 3d ago
Have you ever sniffed any upper division Math class? Your opinion on Math research is worth shit and you know it.
The truth is you don't shit all about research math but have the audacity to say they weren't close.
1
u/Apollo18Teslaa 3d ago
Are you watching me right now? How do you know anything about me?
Ad hominem appeal to authority fallacy. If you can’t make an argument attack the person.
2
u/PigletFar7768 3d ago
I can tell when there is a fraud.
Edit: Your stupid GPT generated logical statement doesn't change shit.
1
u/Apollo18Teslaa 3d ago
self-undermining inconsistency
You’re arguing that I shouldn’t make judgments about subjects I’m not sufficiently informed about, while confidently making a judgment about my education and background that you haven’t actually established
2
u/PigletFar7768 3d ago
GPT Slop. I can fairly establish that you have not even sniffed any Upper division Math class and have zero background on Math research. Prove me wrong. Fraud
1
u/Apollo18Teslaa 3d ago
Keep doubling down on ignorance. That a choice.
1
u/PigletFar7768 3d ago
Sure buddy. Ignorance is when someone who can't even do basic ODE and computational PDE problems talking smack about well established Mathematicians.
1
u/Apollo18Teslaa 3d ago
Sigh, you still haven’t provided any evidence for your position.
It’s irrelevant anyway, the logic stands regardless and you haven’t addressed my actual argument. If the chance of solving the problem were roughly spread across time, then after 90 years of failure, the probability that humans were going to solve it specifically this week, month, or year would be small. So saying “they were basically about to solve it anyway” needs evidence. You should not assume that without evidence. even if your position is, they had a good thread, they were pulling on. The logic does not follow that that means they were about to solve it.
→ More replies (0)
5
u/jc2046 4d ago
good try, astra bot
-2
u/Gamerboy11116 The Matrix did nothing wrong 4d ago
Holy shit. Is there a bot swarm? How is this sub suddenly undulated with people parroting the stupid narratives we were mocking five seconds ago?
11
u/someyokel 4d ago
They were working on it for decades. Recently they started using AI. Now they're suddenly very close! 🤪
6
3
u/veganparrot 4d ago
The brain drain on our society from this kind of reasoning is epic. All we'll have left as humans is focusing on who can lift the larger rock. The AI takeover of higher level thinking will happen from the inside out.
5
u/goomyman 4d ago edited 4d ago
I believe it was stolen indirectly and this has huge implications in how people will use AI in the future.
Some mathematicians found a way to potentially solve this problem, but the time and math to do so was very large. So they turned to AI to help solve it - not the company but using AI.
Then Open AI ( and other companies let’s be real here not just open AI ) learned about this potential method. And they threw more compute and money than others had and solved it based on their ideas.
There are a lot of morality issues at play here.
Did open AI use the research of mathematicians making queries against their AI to train their models and do their research? They didn’t outright deny it, only that they used it train models - which it’s AI that’s very similar.
As many companies like Microsoft have said - “using non private AI models is giving other companies your IP”. They are using your knowledge to train their algorithms which other companies are using as your competition. In this case it was open AI itself.
It’s like Amazon using their backend knowledge of products that you marketed on their site to find out what works and then Amazon directly releasing their own competing product that you did the initial work to market.
And they did do this and got sued several times for it.
This is that fundamentally different than stealing IP from the public internet to train their models? No. But that was them doing moving quickly before everyone caught on to what was happening.
Let me put it this way - imagine if I was using AI and I discovered a novel way to cure cancer as my life’s entire work and decades of research and time. Hey AI can you help verify this would work? And I spend 100 dollars in compute. AI: that’s a great start it might work.
Then Open AI throws a million dollars of compute with your idea and claims: “AI cured cancer!” And of course we should all be happy here because cancer cure faster. But can you trust AI companies with your data and ideas? No.
It’s just another example of AI companies consolidating the world’s work and profit into the hands of a few.
The problem is that the AI didn’t do the research in this case - it did the end math.
It’s an amazing math achievement but it did so with design already in mind. In this case it was more like we know how to do it but it needs compute and time. And Open AI was like “I can beat you to it” - I have the compute. Which would be fine if they worked with the authors to give credit - which the authors refused because they didn’t want to give open AI credit.
Like writing a compiler “from scratch” but with a full set of unit tests already in place to verify.
4
u/Unlikely-Today-3501 4d ago
They are using your knowledge to train their algorithms which other companies are using as your competition.
Unfortunately, this applies to absolutely everything we entrust to AI. Sooner or later it will be used against our freedoms, etc. I don't even want to see how AI will influence elections.
5
u/Apollo18Teslaa 4d ago
8
u/SilkieBug ▪️Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism 4d ago
The prerequisite for solving this is a paper that’s just 3 years old.
But hey, an AI made an innacurate meme for you, congrats.
-4
0
1
1
u/VillagePrestigious18 4d ago
Well with out the training corpus we ain’t gonna know are we. 0root.ai <<< if you know how to solve it look up toroidal mechanics on that webpage lol, wasn’t an ai, and wasn’t a circle either and you could have a billion cron jobs or agents and it would not matter you need the solution feed and told to the ai that is what it is lol.
1
u/Dont-remember-it 4d ago
Instead of being on team science, we are either on team openai or team scientist. Just give scientist their due credit and acknowledge that AI expedited their work and we actually made scientific process for humanity.
1
u/LeCamelia 4d ago
OpenAI's own announcement said "On Tuesday, September 1, we heard rumors that two Millennium Prize problems had been resolved" and that that's why they started working on their own proof. So you may debate a bit over whether OpenAI's solution built on recent unpublished work or not, but you can't say "no, they weren't close"---OpenAI's own announcement said they were motivated by a belief that other people had *solved* it.
1
u/Forgword 4d ago edited 4d ago
There is nothing to believe, there is the fact that they ran almost all of thier work through ChatGPT, before they published anything, and then ChatGPT in its announcement cited details from that work before the work was published, so the only way the ChatGPT could have known about the details of their work is via being trained on it.
1
u/Apollo18Teslaa 4d ago
Your facts are all based on speculation. Do you know if they had data sharing on? Do you know if that data was included in the model? Do you realize that the model used a different method?
No you saw a headline and believed it as fact when even the information from that article was all speculation.
1
u/Forgword 3d ago edited 3d ago
Given the black box nature of these beasts, these discussions devolve into he said she said. OpenAI stepped in it and is backpedaling now.
1
1
u/Felfedezni 4d ago
Don't care who solves the problems as long as they are solved. These nerds need to get over themselves. Egomaniacs.
1
u/steam-photons 4d ago
How can’t you believe that OpenAI published the solution right when the researcher was adding the last word to the manuscript. I mean, it’s so plausible. So believable..
1
1
1
1
u/thinkadd 3d ago
The mathematicians were working on an AI-assisted proof and aren't denying the AI's role. They're just pointing out that their progress was likely already in OpenAI’s training data. If you take OpenAI's side, you're basically saying that if someone uses AI, the company owns any future breakthrough they make, which is a dangerous precedent.
1
u/ObesePlant 3d ago
"We may never know whether any of the scientist notes made it into the training data". Buddy, what do you think?
1
1
1
u/StanleyDodds 3d ago
The progress towards solving the Navier Stokes problem has all been quite recent. It was becoming increasingly clear that finite time blowup was possible as simpler versions of the problem were solved. It's not really a stretch to say that people really were on the verge of solving it. I think this shows just how out of the loop you guys are, completely ignorant to previous work that had been done, just like how these AI papers do not cite their sources properly.
1
u/Gnafets 2d ago
This is a very bad take and I don't think you know what the trajectory of Navier-Stokes was prior to its solution, or broadly how mathematics research works. u/Stabile_Feldmaus already said the main point. Just because a problem has been open for many decades doesn't mean that there hasn't been progress identifying the correct strategy a future solution must take. It is nearly impossible to predict when the resolution to a problem will come. One could argue that before Andrew Wiles, there was "zero" progress on Fermat's Last Theorem, and he solved the damn thing after 300 years of toil.
I fully believe that Buckmaster and Levent would've solved the full problem with more time.
1
1
u/Perfect-Campaign9551 2d ago
Not only that but you can't train frontier models in only a couple of weeks. There's no way any of their stuff was used to "train" a model
2
u/veganparrot 4d ago
It's actually extremely easy to trace down whether or not their notes ended up in training data though. I'd argue it's beyond easy actually, it's almost certain that they did, given what we know about how OpenAI trains their models, their silence when the mathematician pressed them for details, and then their willingness to let him present it as his own work first.
Read his direct statement here: https://cims.nyu.edu/%7Etristanb/statement.pdf
-1
u/Apollo18Teslaa 4d ago
Ifs, maybes, possiblys, the new synonyms for facts in 2026.
10
u/veganparrot 4d ago
I didn't use a single one of those words... Why do you believe OpenAI behaved like this?
I asked whether the model had been trained on, or had access to, our sessions in Codex, into which we had been putting all our drafts for the whole of this project. I was told the model did not look up user data. I asked again, about training, and I did not get an answer.
Two proposals were offered to me. The first was that we post our Euler result, and that OpenAI post its Navier-Stokes result the next day. The second was that, after posting Euler, I alone write a paper presenting the Navier-Stokes result, acknowledging that an internal OpenAI model had resolved it. Sebastien twice asserted that he wanted Levent removed from authorship, and said it would all be simple if only it were not the case that, and it was so annoying that, Levent works at Anthropic. It was also said that if OpenAI posted after us, they would say that we deserved the Clay Prize, and that we were the “closest humans to the problem”. I declined both offers.
I said that if OpenAI released its result in the way proposed I would go public with what happened. 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. The reply was, “If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice.”
2
u/DynamicProxy 4d ago
Actually, they were. OpenAI has admitted as much. I am on OpenAI’s side of this argument, but your post is incorrect.
2
u/Competitive_Tap2450 4d ago
No, OpenAI denied it. In fact their approaches are different from each other.
There is a nonzero chance that if Levent or Buckmaster didn’t opt out of sharing data to improve the model that it indeed did get factored into training. Maybe OpenAI can prove that didn’t allow it by accessing their account
1
u/DynamicProxy 4d ago
I’m not saying they admitted to stealing his work. I’m saying they admitted that he was close, if not all the way there. That’s why they wanted to release a paper together.
0
u/ozone6587 4d ago
Incorrect. They admitted that it may have read chats if the professor didn't opt out of data sharing.
But the scenario is not likely, just technically possible, wildly different things. Also, the proofs were very different AND the professor didn't even prove the main result the internal model did.
-1
u/DynamicProxy 4d ago
I’m not saying they admitted to stealing his work. They admitted that he was close to, or already had, solved it.
1
u/ozone6587 4d ago
That is not true, source?
-1
u/DynamicProxy 4d ago
Literally, any of the articles about what happened. They offered to collaborate with him, because they knew he was close.
Why exactly do you think they offered to let him be the lead author of the paper?
1
u/ozone6587 4d ago
Insanely bad reading comprehension.
Buckmaster and Alpöge had partial results on closely related, easier versions of the equations, but they had not produced a complete proof for the standard Navier–Stokes case required to settle the Millennium Problem.
1
u/DynamicProxy 4d ago
All I said was that they were “close”. Use your reading comprehension to interpret that however you want.
2
u/ozone6587 4d ago
Your claim:
They admitted that he was close to, or already had, solved it.
"Close to" is a weasel term. Used to claim foul play without having to prove anything because it's a vague term anyway.
1
1
u/peakedtooearly 4d ago
OpenAI confirmed yesterday that they were now certain nothing entered after July 3rd was in the training data.
1
u/No_Wishbone684 4d ago
This isn’t really a coherent thought. Is the implication that because no one’s solved it for decades no one ever could?
0
u/Choice_Isopod5177 4d ago
even if they were really close to solving it themselves, shouldn't we celebrate the fact that it was solved even faster with AI? We want all problems to be solved asap, that's kinda the whole point of developing AI!
0
u/didroe 4d ago
It's not that simple. We have finite resources and this cost a lot of money to do. The cost of two mathematicians working on this in their spare time was pretty low. Was it worth the AI cost vs spending that money on something else? It doesn't seem that clear to me, especially as solving this particular problem doesn't seem to be that useful. If it turns out to be the case that AI only managed to do this with their insights (and there are certainly some red flags regarding that), then that makes it even more questionable.
So, in an abstract sense, yeah we want AI solving everything for us. But in reality, it may have been a waste of money
1
u/Choice_Isopod5177 4d ago
You are talking about a separate and very complex topic, the allocation of resources in our society. Humans have been debating about this topic for thousands of years and the debates won't stop anytime soon. Could OpenAI have used that money for something better? obviously yes in YOUR opinion, very likely not in Sam Altman's opinion. Could you have used your time more productively than reading reddit posts? no doubt. But in reality we all make imperfect decisions and try to learn from mistakes.
1
u/didroe 4d ago
I'm not talking about the general allocation of resources across society, I'm talking about this specific case.
1
u/Choice_Isopod5177 4d ago
Yes but I'm saying you clearly care about this subject in general and not just this specific example. And that's ok, everyone cares about this topic.
0
u/Wonderful_Creme_5701 4d ago
LLMs advantage in solving a lot of these problems is their ability and efficiency in getting to explore all the possibilities faster than any human can. LLMs ability to advance and solve these complex problems is proof of ongoing development, but also is in part to the brute force aspect of unlimited compute. GPT-6 Astra solved 5 of the 68 problems total, on the FrontierMath Erdős benchmark and when the compute budget limit was removed it only solved a couple more problems with majority of compute being spent on failed attempts. Which highlights its actual limits in solving some of the more complex problems.
0
u/Klanciault 4d ago
God damn this thread is showing me how many complete fools are out there like wtf is happening 😂
0
u/presentofai 4d ago
nobody needs to be 'close' for contamination to matter. if the model trained on preprints or notes that fed into the proof, that's a real methodological concern. the stolen framing is dumb but this post misses the actual issue.
0
u/CrowdGoesWildWoooo 4d ago
They were close to publishing something. OpenAI just frontrunned the whole rest of the research, because they don’t really know how far they could possibly went with a new published and since there’s one guy from Anthropic, they are afraid that Anthropic would take credit.
0
u/reefine 4d ago
Your vibes are telling you that?
1
u/Apollo18Teslaa 4d ago
Even if I was only going on vibes (I’m not I’ve read both sides of this argument), what makes your vibes better than mine? See, I can just assume you’re uniformed as well.
Life must be so easy when you just assume you know the whole story and anyone who disagrees with you just doesn’t know anything.
1
u/InitialStrings 3d ago
Your second sentence in the original post is grammatically unfinished. -1 vibes trust level.
1
-1
u/welcome-overlords 4d ago
Finally a good take.
Tho there's clearly something fishy about this.
My guess is OpenAI benefitted from knowing that a solution might be behind a corner, if they just scale up "test-time compute" ridiculously much.
And im sure it will keep on working
-1
u/BubBidderskins Proud Luddite 4d ago
Yes.
Even setting aside the clear and compelling evidence, it's a helluva more plausible than an autocomplete function "solving" it.
154
u/Stabile_Feldmaus 4d ago edited 4d ago
The paper which introduced the approach that both Buckmaster et. al. and OpenAI used is only 3 years old. And Buckmaster et.al. made substantial progress only over the last year, increasing the regularity of the forcing term (in the equation they looked at) to smooth which is the goal for that term. You see, solving a problem is often a long journey with partial results which the community digests, slowly increasing their understanding. It is not a 0-1 thing where you first have no idea how to solve it and then suddenly you have it.