This would be a new publication with OpenAI's novel solution. Buckmaster and Alpöge did not arrive at the NS solution, they used an approach that also happened

This would be a new publication with OpenAI's novel solution. Buckmaster and Alpöge did not arrive at the NS solution, they used an approach that also happened to be used in OpenAI's proof. > there’s absolutely no reason to do it if you believe you independently arrived at the result using only public prior work Unless the goal is to assuage the existential pain felt by many mathematicians with respect to what may feel like increasingly inconsequential efforts. It also seemed like a way to build good will amongst knowledge workers dealing with similar issues, with the goal of showing they are dedicated to easing the transition for them as society parades into the future. This has clearly backfired. > The leaving out collaborator part is outright academic malpractice. They would not be leaving a collaborator out. Again, this would be a new publication. Here's the quote from Buckmaster's post [1]: "Two proposals were offered to me. The first was that we post our Euler result, and that OpenAI post its Navier-Stokes result the next day. The second was that, after posting Euler, I alone write a paper presenting the Navier-Stokes result, acknowledging that an internal OpenAI model had resolved it." [1] https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf