3 ms·

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 so

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 21d 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 21d 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 21d 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 21d 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 21d ago
      Yes. This is the worst the models will ever be. Perhaps you should start paying attention to that now.
      - fragmede 21d 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 21d 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 21d 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 21d ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 21d ago
        [deleted]
        drxzcl 21d ago
        Chess is not solved in any meaningful sense of the term. Computers have been better than humans since the 90s, but better chess programs are released all the time.
  - black_knight 21d ago
    The thing about mathematics is that it can be arbitrarily hard, including impossible to prove a given theorem. I don’t know the details of RH, it might very well be solved soon, but it could also be impossible or just so difficult that even orders of magnitude more intelligent AI can’t solve it even. If it is impossible to prove, it might be possible to prove that it is impossible to prove, or that itself might be difficult or impossible…
    - famouswaffles 21d ago
      I mean if it's impossible to prove then the bet is still valid right ? The Clay institute won't be giving out any prize still in that case.
fc417fc802 21d 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.

jtpmath 21d 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 21d 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 21d 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 21d 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 21d ago
    Yes. This is the worst the models will ever be. Perhaps you should start paying attention to that now.
    - fragmede 21d 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 21d 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 21d 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 21d ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 21d ago
        [deleted]
        drxzcl 21d ago
        Chess is not solved in any meaningful sense of the term. Computers have been better than humans since the 90s, but better chess programs are released all the time.
- black_knight 21d ago
  The thing about mathematics is that it can be arbitrarily hard, including impossible to prove a given theorem. I don’t know the details of RH, it might very well be solved soon, but it could also be impossible or just so difficult that even orders of magnitude more intelligent AI can’t solve it even. If it is impossible to prove, it might be possible to prove that it is impossible to prove, or that itself might be difficult or impossible…
  - famouswaffles 21d ago
    I mean if it's impossible to prove then the bet is still valid right ? The Clay institute won't be giving out any prize still in that case.

fc417fc802 21d 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.