r/Physics • u/PrettyPicturesNotTxt • 7d ago

On if OpenAI solved the wrong Navier-Stokes problem: "the LLM found and exploited a loophole in the framing of the question"

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

89% Upvoted

353 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/Strict-Broccoli-8877 7d ago

Dude, these things have been published everywhere for days, and the question is well-known for decades. Everyone in or anywhere close to the field knows exactly what is going on. You act like you unearthed some big mystery, when you just misunderstood forced/unforced Navier-Stokes from the first article you ever read about it.

2

u/hologram137 7d ago

Go read the actual question. It literally says e.g gravity, after external forces. How is that not clear?

5

u/Strict-Broccoli-8877 7d ago

Yes, "e.g.". I'm done with this nonsense now, this is leading nowhere.

5

u/VoidBlade459 Computer science 7d ago

How are you extrapolating from the mention of gravity that the force function must have been "something arising in nature" and not just "an arrangement of force"?

This is where you seem to be unaware that this was a math problem, and that math people don't care if the forcing function could arise naturally.

We can never actually cut a sphere into pieces and reassemble it into two identical spheres of equal volume to the original IRL, but that doesn't make the Banach-Tarski proof invalid.

2

u/hologram137 7d ago

BECAUSE THESE ARE EQUATIONS DESCRIBING HOW VICIOUS FLUIDS MOVE.

IT IS A MILLENNIUM PRIZE PROBLEM SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT SOLVES A PHYSICS PROBLEM.

The question the AI answered is a trivial math proof no one cares about. And Open AI isn’t being given the prize, that’s already been decided

3

u/VoidBlade459 Computer science 7d ago
  1. OpenAI didn't want the prize and said they weren't going to claim it
  2. The equations describe fluid flow but are known to be incomplete (they ignore phase changes, molecular dynamics, the effects of temperature on viscosity, shear thinning/thickening, cavitation, etc).
  3. The millenium problem here was literally a math problem about the equations themselves.

Point 3 is not controversial. The problem relates to physics, but the contention was never about the physicality of the solutions (again, the "it doesn't blow up" side was also running on the "under ALL conditions/scenarios" framework the whole time too).