The researchers were also using AI so we're really just arguing over how much AI is allowed. But somehow a lean-verified proof that came first doesn't count because reasons.
If you have been involved in academia in any way, you know this happens all the time because the field is nearing a breakthrough, not a single person.
Their claim is that they put it to the task after hearing about rumors that Anthropic had gotten there. So not a coincidence in any telling of the tale.
OpenAI should put their internal model to solve the rest of Millenium Prize problems too (assuming their difficulty is in the same ballpark). That would be a proof the model did it without using existing work on the problem.
They did do this, but it seems that Navier-Stokes is the only one that was successful (unless, for some strange reason, they have proofs for the other problems but haven’t released them yet).
>They did do this, but it seems that Navier-Stokes is the only one that was successful
How convenient that they could solve the only problem where researchers have done most of the legwork already. What a coincidence. And the timing, perfect.
LLMs seem to be much better at finding counterexamples than other types of proof. It’s unlikely the other millennium problems will be solved with counter examples
Finding counter examples might be easier, but AI's also useful for assisting in creating proofs. For example, Anthropic just published a formalization of Fermat's last theorem a few days ago, something that human researchers have been working on for decades.
>assuming their difficulty is in the same ballpark
It is not. Many mathematicians have said that they don't expect to see solutions to the other 5 problems in their lifetimes.
Of course, AI might advance fast enough that the "in their lifetimes" part ends up wrong, but there is a considerable gap to the other problems. We have barely any idea of how to even get started on most of them.
For my money, the most “AI does my research” mistake I’ve seen in this whole mess is someone saying “the original researchers did not solve Navier-Stokes, while OpenAI did”. It has all the hallmarks of a classic AI blunder - partially eliding the name of the concept while oversimplifying the concept, a dramatic burst of confidence because it got to express its conclusion as a contradiction, etc. You can practically hear the original AI sentence (“One party lands the Navier-Stokes solve — not the original researchers, but OpenAI.”) before a few words were shuffled around to wash off some of the slop.
Going off the believable citations in the wiki page here, it seems more complicated than "who solved it", as there's a mathematician, Anthropic, and OpenAI having a priority dispute.
I’m well aware of the dispute, and OpenAI’s conduct has definitely been less than respectable.
But when the central claim of the argument (that OpenAI and the researchers solved the same problem) is completely false, it’s hard to take the article seriously.
32 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 32.8 ms ] threadThe researchers were also using AI so we're really just arguing over how much AI is allowed. But somehow a lean-verified proof that came first doesn't count because reasons.
If you have been involved in academia in any way, you know this happens all the time because the field is nearing a breakthrough, not a single person.
How convenient that they could solve the only problem where researchers have done most of the legwork already. What a coincidence. And the timing, perfect.
Also, lots of hype around "millennial" grading, it is kinda funny if we solve all "millennial" problems in first 30 yeas of millenia.
Applicationis the hard part.
It is not. Many mathematicians have said that they don't expect to see solutions to the other 5 problems in their lifetimes.
Of course, AI might advance fast enough that the "in their lifetimes" part ends up wrong, but there is a considerable gap to the other problems. We have barely any idea of how to even get started on most of them.
Ironically, this seems like the type of mistake you'd make if you used AI to do your research.
Author proceeds to take their audience for fools
Going off the believable citations in the wiki page here, it seems more complicated than "who solved it", as there's a mathematician, Anthropic, and OpenAI having a priority dispute.
But when the central claim of the argument (that OpenAI and the researchers solved the same problem) is completely false, it’s hard to take the article seriously.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49613262
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49605915