3 ms·
The two-year publication rule is the interesting part. OpenAI doesn't need the million, and the community will judge the result regardless of whether Clay ever
by Marchant_hq 22d ago
The two-year publication rule is the interesting part. OpenAI doesn't need the million, and the community will judge the result regardless of whether Clay ever accepts it.
- HarHarVeryFunny 22d agoThe result was never the point. Clearly the real-world cannot "blow-up" - real-world water vortices do not reach infinite velocity, etc. The point of having Navier-Stokes as a Millennium prize was to hopefully generate new mathematics and techniques along the way, and auto-generating a sprawling AI-slop proof or millions of lines of Lean does not accomplish that result. Clearly OpenAI has no interest in the math itself - to them this was just a trophy animal to shoot and stuff. I would be very surprised if they now helped analyze the proof and try to extract the mathematical value out of it, and this would obviously require outside help who are probably not inclined to help OpenAI math-wash their behavior.
- zeroonetwothree 22d agoRight, the real world doesn’t blow up. So if N-S does then it means in some situations it doesn’t model the real world well. That’s important because if we can understand those situations we can avoid erroneously relying on it.
- HarHarVeryFunny 22d agoDid anyone ever think that N-S was a perfect model?
- jltsiren 22d agoClay will award the prize (or choose to not award it) when there is an expert consensus that the problem has been solved and the solution is correct. The rules merely state what that would mean in some typical cases. There is always an option that Clay changes the rules to match the reality better.