4 ms·

> or posting arXiv does not count The Poincaré conjecture guy also broke that rule. They wanted to give him the prize anyway but he refused. OpenAI announced t

by ngruhn 14d ago

> or posting arXiv does not count The Poincaré conjecture guy also broke that rule. They wanted to give him the prize anyway but he refused. OpenAI announced they would also not claim the prize. Looks like no one wants this prize lol

tristanj 14d ago
You might be right. At this rate, if AI solves the remaining five problems, we're heading towards a hilarious situation where all the Millennium Problems are solved, but nobody wants to claim the prize money.
- jtpmath 14d ago
  I did and was intending to claim the prize, that is why I worked with GPT-4 and GPT-5 to program the algorithms that lead to the breakthrough. You think NS is a surprise? Wait until you see that my NS counterexample was based on my RH disproof.
- seanhunter 14d ago
  That’s a big if. In the maths community, there has been a feeling that Navier-Stokes was close to being solved for a while now. I don’t know of anyone credible who feels that way about the Riemann hypothesis. Here’s what Terrence Tao had to say about it https://youtu.be/vuT-2_e4NHg https://youtu.be/vuT-2_e4NHg Edit to add: The fun part about the RH since people mentioned lean in a sibling thread is that in lean’s mathlib4 there is verified statement of the Riemann Hypothesis with a comment that says something like “instantiating an object of this type will lead to a prize of a million dollars”
  - famouswaffles 14d ago
    It's really not that big. Yeah Navier-Stokes was easier than Riemann but that's not really the issue. AI has and will improve at a much greater rate than human mathematicians. So it's really a question of if AI gets good enough to tackle it before any human does. It doesn't look like humans will be solving it anytime soon but where will AI be in 2 years ? Hell, it looks like at least one other result will be announced soon too.
    - xanderlewis 14d ago
      Has and will. Are you going to back that assertion up at all, or just repeat it like that other viral thought-terminating cliche: ‘this is the worst the models will ever be’?
      - famouswaffles 14d ago
        Yes. This is the worst the models will ever be. Perhaps you should start paying attention to that now.
        fragmede 14d ago
        No it isn't. Best and worst and ill-defined anyway but the chess ELO score of various LLMs has fluctuated up and down, it's not been montonically increasing. What is the best answer to "how do I make cocaine"? The models are getting larger, with more compute and RAM backing them, but that doesn't automatically make them better if you don't define how you're measuring better-ness.
        famouswaffles 14d ago
        None of the frontier labs care about Chess as it's already a solved problem. If they did, the models would be much better. It's really not that hard. Google has a paper on grandmaster level chess without search from transformers. Better obviously means better, like how they became better than they were 6 months and a year ago.
        vdomi 14d ago
        I would describe better as how much of my work I can delegate to the agent. Right now I'm delegating much more to Astra high than 6 months ago to Opus 4.6. Every dev has this feeling, it's weird to even argue what a better model/harness means.
        deleted 14d ago
- fc417fc802 14d ago
  TBF a company the size of openai claiming a prize of this sort would be a pretty bad look. If they did accept it I expect they would inevitably redirect it to charity for PR reasons. I'm surprised perelman turned it down though. Seems straightforward enough to offer half of it to the other guy if you feel strongly about it.
ncruces 14d ago
Perelman posted to arXiv in 2002/3. The prize was offered to him in 2010, after multiple others had digested his work and published elsewhere.
- kzrdude 14d ago
  But if I remember correctly, he gained recognition for his achievement rather quickly after posting.

by ngruhn 14d ago

tristanj 14d ago

You might be right. At this rate, if AI solves the remaining five problems, we're heading towards a hilarious situation where all the Millennium Problems are solved, but nobody wants to claim the prize money.

jtpmath 14d ago
I did and was intending to claim the prize, that is why I worked with GPT-4 and GPT-5 to program the algorithms that lead to the breakthrough. You think NS is a surprise? Wait until you see that my NS counterexample was based on my RH disproof.
seanhunter 14d ago
That’s a big if. In the maths community, there has been a feeling that Navier-Stokes was close to being solved for a while now. I don’t know of anyone credible who feels that way about the Riemann hypothesis. Here’s what Terrence Tao had to say about it https://youtu.be/vuT-2_e4NHg https://youtu.be/vuT-2_e4NHg Edit to add: The fun part about the RH since people mentioned lean in a sibling thread is that in lean’s mathlib4 there is verified statement of the Riemann Hypothesis with a comment that says something like “instantiating an object of this type will lead to a prize of a million dollars”
- famouswaffles 14d ago
  It's really not that big. Yeah Navier-Stokes was easier than Riemann but that's not really the issue. AI has and will improve at a much greater rate than human mathematicians. So it's really a question of if AI gets good enough to tackle it before any human does. It doesn't look like humans will be solving it anytime soon but where will AI be in 2 years ? Hell, it looks like at least one other result will be announced soon too.
  - xanderlewis 14d ago
    Has and will. Are you going to back that assertion up at all, or just repeat it like that other viral thought-terminating cliche: ‘this is the worst the models will ever be’?
    - famouswaffles 14d ago
      Yes. This is the worst the models will ever be. Perhaps you should start paying attention to that now.
      - fragmede 14d ago
        No it isn't. Best and worst and ill-defined anyway but the chess ELO score of various LLMs has fluctuated up and down, it's not been montonically increasing. What is the best answer to "how do I make cocaine"? The models are getting larger, with more compute and RAM backing them, but that doesn't automatically make them better if you don't define how you're measuring better-ness.
        famouswaffles 14d ago
        None of the frontier labs care about Chess as it's already a solved problem. If they did, the models would be much better. It's really not that hard. Google has a paper on grandmaster level chess without search from transformers. Better obviously means better, like how they became better than they were 6 months and a year ago.
        vdomi 14d ago
        I would describe better as how much of my work I can delegate to the agent. Right now I'm delegating much more to Astra high than 6 months ago to Opus 4.6. Every dev has this feeling, it's weird to even argue what a better model/harness means.
        deleted 14d ago
fc417fc802 14d ago
TBF a company the size of openai claiming a prize of this sort would be a pretty bad look. If they did accept it I expect they would inevitably redirect it to charity for PR reasons. I'm surprised perelman turned it down though. Seems straightforward enough to offer half of it to the other guy if you feel strongly about it.

ncruces 14d ago

Perelman posted to arXiv in 2002/3. The prize was offered to him in 2010, after multiple others had digested his work and published elsewhere.

kzrdude 14d ago
But if I remember correctly, he gained recognition for his achievement rather quickly after posting.