Hacker News Reader

Comment by dgellow | Hacker News Reader

That’s not at all the topic of discussion. The article is talking about the fact that OpenAI solved a version of the problem that is niche and isn’t the one the math community cares about

View on HN

Who is this math community? Since when did they form the consensus that this option is not at all what they care about, before or after they knew about OpenAI’s solution?

What about Tristan Buckmaster and Levent Alpöge, did they also attempt to solve the same challenge? Didn’t they know it wasn’t interesting?

> What about Tristan Buckmaster and Levent Alpöge, did they also attempt to solve the same challenge? Didn’t they know it wasn’t interesting?

Yes, they were working on what is considered a niche case, the option C from the millennium statement for Navier-Stokes. The article explains that clearly, you can just read it and get the details

I wish there were some better way to see, before the IPO, how openAI's actions correlate with their bottomline.

(I'm proAI (for the masses, but green) BUT antiopenAI and a bit less antiAnthropic. For me it's all about the personalities.. the people in oAI are deeply uncool. not so in Ant. Dario is still dangerous, but I guess sexily dangerous lol

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/corywarfield_aigenerated-humo... )

Dario is sexily dangerous until you read his essays in full then realize it’s just the same LessWrong sci-fi ideas at the core, all based on absurdly simplified thought experiments designed to justify their priors. Those people are deeply unserious and do not value existing humans. They already made their mind decades ago rereading the fact we need a machine god and that they should be the ones building it.

Just the idea of making a conscious digital being, to then get it to process excel files for its whole existence is such an immoral concept

>and isn’t the one the math community cares about

Then why was it allowed as an option in the millennium prize statement?

At the time that the Millenium Prize problems were formulated, the force term was understood to make the problem more realistic, since real fluids are always going to have external forces applied to them. A blowup that happens under constant gravity, for example, would probably be no less interesting than an entirely unforced blowup. The strategy of constructing impossibly complex external forces to induce a blowup was pioneered by Córdoba and Martínez-Zoroa only over the past few years.

Today that point is moot because.. including this one, the Mill problems that are most likely to have been solved are least likely to have real world impact..

Extrapolating on that, I'll take on the biased hope that almost none of the 100 solutions to be released will have any applications for at least 30 years.. (besides PR wins for AI companies)

In order to counter the fear (my own lonely one) that the 9 big names will not be able to hold the execs to account or get openAI to act "more responsibly" (whatever that means).. in the form of direct hits to new subs or partnerships or funding

I plead guilty to any accusations of (vicarious) sour grapes or sympathy for the weak

Point to you, because.. the committee would make more sense if they also bring Ant to the table.. unfortunately nerds will be nerds, so perhaps, to you, and I'll reluctantly concede, mathematicians deserve to be serfs

I don't think Anthropic needs such a committee because they don't make a habit of hill-climbing other people's problems.

Exactly! One effect of the committee might be to benefit Ant by its presence alone.. if only by striking fear in OpenAI.. Ant don't even need to thank them at once

Let's say they do not much on Ant's findings but edge on the NDA with OpenAI. That might even be PR victory for mathematicians

Bocause they expected it to be solved by human mathematicians using techniques that could provide insight into the harder version.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com