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.
WarmWash 44 minutes ago [-]
"Is OpenAI taking everyone for fools?"
Author proceeds to take their audience for fools
moralestapia 7 minutes ago [-]
OpenAI did not solve it either.
At least do a tiny bit of research before claiming such thing.
fwlr 46 minutes ago [-]
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.
imjonse 2 hours ago [-]
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.
bearseascape 2 hours ago [-]
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).
TitusCaius 35 minutes ago [-]
Though they claim the contrary, it looks that OpenAI would get nowhere if it did not have information about a recent breakthrough.
lcubw 4 hours ago [-]
OpenAI claims to have solved a decades old mathematical problem just as researchers are about to publish about their solution. Coincidence?
zaubarari 3 hours ago [-]
It's just a desperate attempt to prove how grandiose their new model is
kelseyfrog 45 minutes ago [-]
If they want to desperately solve the remaining Millennium Prize problems, I won't object.
jsLavaGoat 3 hours ago [-]
AI derangement syndrome is amazing.
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.
cratermoon 3 hours ago [-]
No, we're arguing over whether or not openai stole the other researcher's work.
The evidence is pretty damning.
The evidence is a combination of two things: Tristan insinuating they did (note, not claiming but suggesting or implying), and their own statement saying "While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models ."
The latter is being used by everyone as a sign of guilt, but it's clear that they are making a legally-safe statement since promising a forensic level guarantee that nothing Tristan has every typed into ChatGPT has ever made its way into any training data is a massive claim.
It's also a ridiculous expectation since tons of researchers use ChatGPT or Codex and many have "Use this data to improve" setting on.
aedfhgaerty 39 minutes ago [-]
>The evidence is a combination of two things
And a third thing: OpenAI's thuggish behavior. Threatening a researcher with reputational ruin and demanding one of their competitors be denied proper credit is unacceptable, and we know OpenAI did both (unless Buckmaster is simply lying. which I find unlikely).
>many have "Use this data to improve" setting on.
Quite irrelevant. We are talking about scientific misconduct, not IP law. It would be misconduct for OpenAI to publish without proper reference to prior art even if that prior art had been explicitly committed to the public domain 1,000 years ago.
Ironically, this seems like the type of mistake you'd make if you used AI to do your research.
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.
Author proceeds to take their audience for fools
At least do a tiny bit of research before claiming such thing.
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.
https://techcrunch.com/2026/09/08/openai-fought-dirty-on-car...
The evidence is a combination of two things: Tristan insinuating they did (note, not claiming but suggesting or implying), and their own statement saying "While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models ."
The latter is being used by everyone as a sign of guilt, but it's clear that they are making a legally-safe statement since promising a forensic level guarantee that nothing Tristan has every typed into ChatGPT has ever made its way into any training data is a massive claim.
It's also a ridiculous expectation since tons of researchers use ChatGPT or Codex and many have "Use this data to improve" setting on.
And a third thing: OpenAI's thuggish behavior. Threatening a researcher with reputational ruin and demanding one of their competitors be denied proper credit is unacceptable, and we know OpenAI did both (unless Buckmaster is simply lying. which I find unlikely).
>many have "Use this data to improve" setting on.
Quite irrelevant. We are talking about scientific misconduct, not IP law. It would be misconduct for OpenAI to publish without proper reference to prior art even if that prior art had been explicitly committed to the public domain 1,000 years ago.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49613262
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49605915