3 ms·
This article is completely mistaken. The original researchers did not solve Navier-Stokes, while OpenAI did. Ironically, this seems like the type of mistake yo
by demibabs 1mo ago
This article is completely mistaken. The original researchers did not solve Navier-Stokes, while OpenAI did.
Ironically, this seems like the type of mistake you'd make if you used AI to do your research.
- fwlr 1mo agoFor 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.
- greygoo222 1mo ago[flagged]
- WarmWash 1mo ago"Is OpenAI taking everyone for fools?" Author proceeds to take their audience for fools
- avree 1mo agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#2026_claims_of_counter-example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existenc... 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.
- demibabs 1mo agoI’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.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]