Drama aside, this solution would be a counterexample disproving the smoothness postulate, which means that it leads to nothing new unfortunately. We already had working solutions to navier stokes, the only thing we didn't know is if the equations possessed a technical property

Its a bit like solving p = np with a negative result. Its an incredibly difficult problem, but it doesn't lead to anything at all on its own. This is why people are talking about the fact that the solution methodology is much more interesting than the solution - the tools used to crack something like this may lead to solving more useful problems

To be quite clear, the solution to the _Navier Stokes problem_ is one in which you get a finite time blow up (i.e. infinite pressure). This is more meant to suggest that Navier Stokes is unphysical in some way which is not necessarily unexpected.

There's unlikely to be any engineering applications since even if the solution can be approximated, you still need to set up the initial conditions but at that point you can also drive pressure in other ways.

> But apart from AI and drama now that we have working solution to Navier-Stokes, what improvements can we expect in engineering?

Minor productivity boost in mathematics as people are no longer nerdsniped by the problem

> But apart from AI and drama now that we have working solution to Navier-Stokes, what improvements can we expect in engineering?

Nothing, really. This mirrors other examples of blowups from the classical physics. It's possible to create a system with just gravitating bodies that exhibits a blowup to infinite speeds in a finite time. The root cause is that, in classical physics, the speed of gravity is instant.

In the case of Navier-Stokes, the fluid is incompressible. So technically any force that you apply to it is supposed to instantly affect everything else. This can be exploited to create these blowups. In reality, no fluid is incompressible, and it takes time for any action to affect the material.

It's just that Navier-Stokes equations are so slippery that it's hard to pin their behavior down. They basically just restate the momentum conservation law for a continuous medium.

I am absolutely struggling to sell my workplace (which is entirely knowledge work) on the usefulness of LLMs for proofreading let alone on automation of hairy parts of our workflows. So yeah, even people who should be able to see what is coming are not looking.

> This just pushes knowledge work further up the ladder, toward larger and more complex problems.

You really think it makes sense for you to be higher on the "solving complex problems ladder" than the machines that solved fucking Navier-Stokes?

I envy your self-confidence.

It is not reasonable to not believe anything unless there is "evidence" (narrowly construed as an observation incompatible with the negation of some state of affairs). Beliefs have a wide spectrum of characterizations, and not all belief must wait until publicly corroborated evidence is available. Some events defy evidence and we can and should use experience and reasoning to infer unobservable states of affairs.

...obviously it is evidence of the singularity. You're far more likely to see models solving Millenium Prize problems if a singularity is coming than if it's not. One'd have to be doing quite a lot of mental gymnastics to pretend otherwise.

There's an event horizon and we're maybe past it?

Practical?! The goalposts will keep moving until morale improves (narrator: it doesn't)

feels like moving the goalpost. is the achievement impressive or isn't it?

How many fucks should be given, in your estimation?

https://mastodon.social/@tristanbuckmaster/11723647135247030...

He very much is accusing them of stealing his work

The accusation is that they stole his approach of solving it. If OpenAI didn't bruteforce it with dozens of agents, he would have solved Navier-Stokes eventually since he evidently had the right approach. So knowing which approach to take makes all the difference, if they didn't know the approach they couldn't have solved it.

It's like he had a treasure map and was about to find the treasure, but they copied his treasure map and scooped him with a faster boat and found the treasure first. But he would have found it if it weren't for them.

> The said user (Tristan Buckmaster) didn't solve the millennium problem. He didn't really accuse that OpenAI stole his research either. The beef came from the fact OpenAI asked him to remove another mathematician, who works for Anthropic, from the credit.

Not quite accurate, Buckmaster was taking an approach that nobody else was, and this new proof uses this same approach just weeks after he saved those results to OpenAI workspaces. He asked OpenAI if they used chat logs for training the new model, and they did not confirm or deny.

Asking to remove his collaborator is also totally over the line though.

Edit: although this OpenAI post is not comforting: https://x.com/OpenAI/status/2097375276384567642

Quote: "While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models. "

Have you read the actual statement https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf ?

> I should say here why I interpreted their statement the way I did, the in- terpretation I will discuss below. The route to the Clay problem through a smooth force, options c and d in Fefferman’s statement of the problem, is the route Luis and Diego opened and the one Levent and I had quietly chosen to attack. Almost nobody else I know of was working on it. It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement. When I heard “forced,” it was a bright red flag.

...

> I asked when the first prompt had been sent by them. This question was not answered directly by OpenAI for some time. Eventually it was agreed that it had been sent in the past few days, after information about our work had reached OpenAI. > 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.

It's not a direct accusation, but it's not far off.

You shouldn't accuse other people of spreading misinformation when you haven't read the actual sources in question, it's possible that they might know more than you.