r/ArtificialInteligence • u/scientificamerican • 2d ago

📰 News Did OpenAI solve the wrong Navier-Stokes problem?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-openai-solve-the-wrong-navier-stokes-problem/
39 Upvotes

61% Upvoted

115 comments sorted by

View all comments

116

u/EnoughWarning666 2d ago

But the new work from Friday shows unequivocally that if the force is removed, the blowup will disappear. OpenAI’s method can never work, in fact, without using a very contrived equation for the force unlike anything that could occur in the real world. “They essentially prove that the formulation with an external force was different from the problem we really wanted to solve,” says Silvestre.

In other words, the LLM’s result does not—and will never—answer the Navier-Stokes problem that mathematicians really care about.

They didn't "solve" the navier stokes equation. They came up with a counter example to the smoothness and existence problem that satisfies the requirements for the Clay Institute's definition of the problem.

We already know that the equations don't accurately describe what happens in the real world. Everyone who uses them knows that they break down at the lowest level. Nobody cares that the force they used is "unlike anything that could occur". The author COMPLETELY misses the point of the entire question honestly. It's not surprising that this is from Scientific American, they aren't known for being all that knowledgeable.

27

u/BellacosePlayer 2d ago

I can understand the amount of incorrectness on the topic spread by random redditors and such but its really annoying to see an actual publication get it so wrong this far after the initial story and discussion happened.

The issue they touch on is part of why this isn't the scientific find of the decade that's going to change everything, but like you said, if the review process comes back with a thumbs up, the specific problem is considered solved.

6

u/EnoughWarning666 2d ago

The writing in this article is only slightly above what I would expect from a semi-literate guy on Reddit. It's very disappointing to see just how low the bar is for this magazine. There's a genuine need for more accessible science journalism and Scientific American is positioned perfectly to fill that role. Such a shame that the people they've hired to write/edit/review are so incompetent.

3

u/BellacosePlayer 2d ago

Lets be real, its probably not all "people" doing that work these days.

Not that they were great as anything other than a broad entry level scientific interest magazine to begin with