Re:Navier–Stokes Lost in Translation
by runarberg on Wednesday October 07, 2026 @03:23PM
(#49997585)
I don’t. But I do know how the scientific method works, and OpenAI’s display is anything but. Until what they have demonstrated is reproduced I take their claims to be nothing but marketing. A for profit company will lie in order to maximize their profits. Above I presented an alternative hypothesis, which is probably wrong, but until OpenAI’s results are replicated I will believe my alternative hypothesis just as much as I believes the claims of the for profit company making them.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
I’m a non-math layman, and not a scientific method knower like yourself. How does one usually “replicate” a math or Lean proof?
It's the method they used to create the proof that's in question here. They claim their amazing product did it, and therefore you should buy their product because will do amazing things for you too!
Re:Navier–Stokes Lost in Translation
by bordercases on Wednesday October 07, 2026 @04:37PM
(#49998477)
Hopefully not in the same way you should never naively trust compilers!
Re:Navier–Stokes Lost in Translation
by runarberg on Wednesday October 07, 2026 @05:08PM
(#49998821)
The generation of the proof can be replicated. And if it can‘t we should be suspicious of their claims.
Re:Navier–Stokes Lost in Translation
by aesthesia on Wednesday October 07, 2026 @10:28PM
(#50001291)
> I presented an alternative hypothesis, which is probably wrong, but until OpenAI’s results are replicated I will believe my alternative hypothesis
If you think it's probably wrong, why believe it?
Re:Navier–Stokes Lost in Translation
by runarberg on Wednesday October 07, 2026 @10:38PM
(#50001340)
In the absence of evidence, a guess is the best you got.
And, no until OpenAI’s results have been replicated, I don‘t believe companies own words about their own products, and therefor a marketing statement is not evidence.