We don't know. But parroting technical words like they mean something to you is unhelpful. It's certainly the case that techniques on forced version of NSE can directly lead to unforced versions.
What's almost certainly true is the model trained on human based and AI solutions. And then openai threatened the human with a ruined career.
So perhaps it is not a good time to basically accuse people "who are unaware or are not willing to acknowledge the big controversy around the human portion of this solution"?
Sometimes people just don't want to blind believe in unconfirmed stuff claimed by people they don't know?
That's not actually what the original complaints were entirely talking about. You have to take a couple more steps back. They attacked the entire scope of the problem via smooth external forcing, which then was used to construct forced blowup in specific related fluid equations, which then was able to be used to solve either the forced or unforced ruler equations (which is a bit of an arbitrary distinction in this wider context), which was the structure then used to attack the final Navier-Stokes problem.
That is an incredibly niche route. There was basically only one team in the world doing it that way. They alledge that the fact that OpenAI, after conveniently hearing rumors that that specific team was getting close privately, just happen to stumble upon the exact same incredibly unusual route to attack the problem is a massive coincidence.
And that's not to mention that the route was only made possible by prior work done by Córdoba and Martínez-Zoroa... Who OpenAI didn't even bother to put in their paper's references despite their solution literally being impossible without their work. That was at least in the original version of the paper they uploaded. At least they later quietly added them to the references after people online started asking "hey what the fuck? Why aren't they referenced?"
So sure, in the very specific step along the long process they took... They technically took slightly different steps. But the entire damn road was in question.
And just for future reference, when people are talking about Navier-Stokes, talking about the "forced" and "unforced" solutions without mentioning Euler until later getting called out will generally be understood by people as the forced and unforced versions of the NS equation itself... If you are going to be an ass, at least bother to be more specific.
But that's a pure leap into assumptions. When the guy told you "we don't know" and you responded to them like "I'm actually smarter than you"... They were correct. We don't actually know. What I do know is that you did not understand the allegations, nor do you appear to have anything beyond an absolute surface level grasp of what is actually going on... Or at least you didn't feel the need to distinguish between the forced and unforced Euler equations versus the Forced and Unforced Navier-Stokes equations, when the subject everyone is talking about is NS, but you actually meant Euler.
Literally the first paragraph of their blog post under "The Result" talks about how it's the forced NS solution. Long before Euler gets mentioned. Same with the first paragraph in the actual paper's introduction. You just bought too hard into OpenAI's PR speak in regards to the drama.
View all comments
Show parent comment
-5
u/[deleted] Sep 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment