n2d4

Because he's Dan Guido of Trail of Bits. If anyone has the exploit, it would probably be them

I think it's clear at this point that the exploit exists, but is very hard to discover even with AI. It's likely that only top security groups and nation states have it right now, no one who would care about $2,000

Is the point that you're making that it only found the vulnerabilities because they were in the training set, and therefore AI didn't really "find" them?

If so, I fear you're making the opposite point, which is that AI made genuinely new discoveries that were not in its training set, about codebases that were in its training set. It quite literally expanded the horizon of what we know.

A tiny minority of applications use a vast majority of compute.

If 97% of programs use 2x more compute, the total amount of compute used in the world will be nearly unaffected.

The withdrawn papers were not lean verified nor claimed to be.

I thought it was a fixed ratio (1/3rd?) for posts and 1/1 for comments? Can't tell you for sure about posts as I mostly just comment, but someone else can surely jump in

You're right — the wording in the doc is that the "first prompt" was sent after learning about the rumor, although this might be the first prompt of this solution approach, not necessarily first prompt to any Navier Stokes solution.

Drama/accusation summary:

- Aug 15th: Tristan Buckmaster & Levent Alpöge make progress on a few important math problems, "finite-time blowup with smooth forcing for incompressible porous media, for Boussinesq, and for 3d incompressible Euler."

- they do NOT have a proof for the $1,000,000 Millenium Prize problem. BUT, they do claim to have a proof for a similar (non-Millenium) Navier Stokes problem that could help lead the way there

- Levent works at Anthropic, but this research was independent of his work there, with a mix of GPT and Claude models. Tristan is not related to Anthropic.

- Early Sep: Rumor spreads to OpenAI that Anthropic solved a major problem. Tristan emails OpenAI to clarify, without revealing the problem they solved or how they did it.

- After hearing of the rumor, OpenAI started researching Navier Stokes with a new internal model.

- Sep 6th: OpenAI's Sebastien Bubeck tells Tristan that they solved the $1,000,000 Millenium Prize Navier Stokes problem. The approach is very similar to Tristan & Levent's approach to the non-Millenium problem.

- Tristan is suspicious of the timing, as only few others were trying this approach. OpenAI says the model didn't access his user data directly, but leaves unanswered whether Tristan's chat conversations were part of the training.

- OpenAI says they would partially credit Tristan for the $1,000,000 discovery (even though Tristan did not solve the $1,000,000 problem) — but only if they remove Levent as an author, as he works for Anthropic.

- Sep 8th: Tristan refuses to remove Levent, and rushes to publish their results independently.

Sure and whoever sells the monitor can sell it in a bundle like that, people will just stop buying their monitor and buy the competition's instead

You can do that with software, too. It just turns out that there's more people who want to bundle their software

This is really cool! Although a little disappointed that it punished me for using an emdash instead of a dash when an emdash would've been syntactically correct :)

> I don't understand why you'd ever want these two things combined into a single image.

An image with the FOV of the wide-angle camera but the quality of the main one in the center? Assuming the border interpolation works well (which tbf is probably hard for close objects), why would anyone not want this?

Content, like software, is easy to copy and distribute. Traditional supply-demand diagrams no longer apply; content doesn't get more expensive to produce if it reaches more people.

This creates a monopolistic economy where top content creators can create slightly "better"/more viral content at a multiple of the cost, and starve out smaller creators.

Not sure why you're getting downvoted. You are correct, and it is so rampant these days that I wish we just banned the word "after" in headlines.