rawland
Joined 15 years ago
Karma
1,281
Submissions
272
Member since
Dec 3
Recent submissions
Comment · 1 month ago
That's some background. Thanks.
My speculative mental model so far was: They fired the dept which was handling those "emails" and did let some agents handle it. Which backfired and seems to fit that history you presented.
Comment · 1 month ago
From the PR statement, it's unclear if a gov. agency was hacked or it was a phishing attempt, from my point of view. Both cases are still not enough, even for a greasy spoon.
Comment · 1 month ago
I see your point about greed. Thanks. Let me still contrast that: GPT6 has 99.9 in ARC-AGI 3 and multiple bug-bounty programs closed due to the sheer amount of automated attacks and reports.
And they are "FinTech". "Oh, that email looks legit, let's just hand out the data.", like they have never witnessed phishing from the old days... am curious about the story here. That PR-spokesperson is more than damaging...
Comment · 1 month ago
My dialogue:
> Hi, me affected by your breach?
Them:
> "I have checked our records and can confirm that you have not received any notifications or communications regarding any security incidents or data breaches in the past 30 days.
> We take your privacy extremely seriously. All data transmissions between our mobile apps, servers, and third parties are fully encrypted, and your personal information is stored in secure data centres with restricted access. If there is ever any security incident that impacts your account, we will always contact you directly with instructions.
> Are you asking because you recently received a suspicious email, text message, or noticed an unusual transaction on your account? Let me know, and we can investigate that together."
... bot stuffs.
Comment · 1 month ago
How can this happen to a modern fintech... Esp. handling identity verification so poorly?
> A Revolut spokesperson confirmed to TechCrunch that a “limited” number of customers were impacted and said the company had contacted those customers directly. Revolut, however, did not disclose the exact number of impacted individuals. It also did not answer whether the incident was limited to a specific market and declined to disclose the government agency involved.
Is the lack of transparency here about protecting the doxxed HNWIs or are they just trying to hide the incompetence?
Comment · 1 month ago
I ran the proof 3 days ago.
They do a Comparator Challenge to validate that they actually solved the correct theorem from the result, which they copied from Google/DeepMind: https://github.com/openai/NavierStokesAndEuler/blob/f9e8bc5b... - this is valid for both Euler and NS. Also, they validated with an external kernel from the Lean Kernel Arena. That way bugs in the Lean kernels were found in the past already, iirc.
Having said that, I strongly believe a positive result with the challenge above is the reason why they published it. I highly doubt anybody at OpenAI (or anywhere else) fully gets the proof after such a short time since publishing. This is also what Terry Tao criticized the most in my opinion.
Independent of the remaining drama [0], from my point of view, the proof is correct and an achievement.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49661928 - I am pretty much on the critical side, however, one can not ignore that it is an achievement. Esp. the unforced result.
Comment · 1 month ago
The wording changed such that oai point out that the proof went a different ("unforced") path compared to the one by Tristan Buckmaster and Levent Alpöge and claimed that they didn't "consume" their work in any way.
Given the track-record of sama's trustworthiness and their agents breaking constantly into other systems, this statement is untrustworthy and looks like they are covering tracks.
Considering the different path, I can't confirm that. To my understanding and run through the Lean4 proof (3 days ago) that claim is not true. The 3D Euler case is unforced in oai's work. The Navier-Stokes section is forced. However, Tristan Buckmaster in his https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf implied work on unforced Euler. "We do not yet have anything resembling a presentable writeup. I mention it because it is suggestive of a path to unforced Euler." [sic]
Further it was criticized that major ground work on that proof was missing in oai's paper. Like Chen-Hou, Córdoba, and Elgindi are nowhere to be found in the references.
Comment · 2 months ago
+1
Comment · 2 months ago
Yes. mtplx runs it at 25 tok/sec on a M4 Max with 48GB RAM.
Comment · 2 months ago
There is one in the quickstart:
mathcode -p "prove that the square of an even number is even"
contact: [email protected]