Claude proved Fermat's Last Theorem this week, unsolved for 358 years, thirteen million lines of proof. It only counts because a mathematician at Imperial College London checked it line by line. Not AI replacing judgement, AI alongside it, with a human still saying yes.
OpenAI shared a solution to the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize Problem, produced in 88 hours by around 10,000 agents on a new internal model, and says Tristan Buckmaster's Codex prompts could not have influenced the system
After Math via @ mseri https:// lobste.rs/s/ojls0p # ai # math # philosophy https:// terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/09 /12/after-math/
Restructuring how mathematics academia works wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. But humans being humans, there must be a period of wailing and gnashing of teeth first. 🙂 # aiinmaths # math
AI Is Breaking Our Proxies for Expertise, by @seangoedecke.bsky.social: https://www. seangoedecke.com/ai-is-breakin g-our-proxies-for-expertise/?ref=frontenddogma.com # ai # math
Too bad the part about the controversity is paywalled. The internet is going wild to what extent the proof was stolen or not. There is quite some complexity involved who did what and to what extent openai models used other people’s work.
"A Severe Misalignment of AI in Mathematics" - a declaration signed by 25 Fields Medal recipients https:// lemmy.ml/post/52673676
A 14 million line proof does not advance human understanding of math, because humans cannot parse the structure of a text that long in a way that provides for understanding
The mess around the Navier-Stokes proof has been sitting with me for days now.
🤖 OpenAI's Millennium Prize proof has turned into a credit dispute, and Fields Medalists are now getting involved
An NYU mathematician named Tristan Buckmaster announced earlier this week that he and Anthropic mathematician Levent Alpöge had made progress on the Navier-Stokes existence and […]
It might have solved the equation just a step earlier, because it had much much MUCH more input to work with. And some of this input was from the math scientists working on the same proof. But it hasn't solved the equation completely on its onw.
OpenAI announced a solution to the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem, but mathematicians and rival AI firms contest the originality and attribution of the work. #tech #OpenAI #NavierStokes
A useful read for anyone who doesn’t want to be swept away by AI hype. An impressive answer is not proof that AI understands or reasons. Always ask: what exactly can it do, how was that tested, and when does it fail? Iris van Rooij explains why. 👌
I have. Some AI math claims deserve criticism. But that doesn’t justify dismissing the entire evidence base. Eg First Proof used unpublished research problems with answers withheld beforehand and expert mathematical review and an ETH-led system solved 6/10. That’s empirical and falsifiable.
The team of researchers who used AI within OpenAI to find this proof are also humans and also have as much right to any and all parts math as anyone else, using whatever methods they would like to use in order to pursue it.
We can object to the company receiving clout here separately.
Interesting piece on the suspicions of the math community regarding AI companies having access to your chats. Relevant for scientists increasingly relying on AI tools: www.theverge.com/ai-artificia... 🧪
OpenAI says one of its AI models solved a Millennium Prize problem, the unsolved math puzzles that carry a $1 million reward each.
Mathematicians who reviewed it say the AI got to an answer but shows no real sign it understood the proof it produced.
Indeed. Another good take: bsky.app/profile/josh... (e.g. pointing to the only previous Millennium Prize solution announcement, by Perelman, who wasn't super integrated with "the mathematical community" either, and left the "proper writeup" to others as well - just like those super evil AI bros)
GPT-6 is a groundbreaking leap over its predecessors and its successor has been in training for two weeks and just solved a Millennium Prize.
🤣 Ah, yes, the grand revelation that # AI and # math have different "goals." Because we all know AI's main ambition is to # overthrow # humanity , not solve calculus problems.🤖📚 Twenty-five mathematicians with too much time on their hands unite to point out the obvious—AI companies aren't exactly in it for the quadratic equations. 👏 https:// liorpachter.wordpress.com/2026 /09/12/align-ai-and-m…
And while Buckmaster tries to emphasize the importance of humans, it's unclear to what extent they produced the ideas since it seems to have been so hard to even understand the proofs LLMs generated for them.
If you accuse other people of using AI without equivalent proof, then you are applying a standard to them that you refuse to apply to yourself.
Too many things get called religions, but hardcore AI advocacy is so close.
Apologetics, rhetorical devices to convince people of unquantifiable things, miracles as proof, claims about future benefits, an entire eschatology, and endless warnings about how if you don't do it you'll be left behind.
Grok saw the letter from the Field Medalists and wants to assure them that it will never solve a Millennium prize problem
https://www. eldiario.es/sociedad/grandes-m atematicos-reaccionan-actitud-openai-amenaza-trabajo-intelectual_1_13504677.html # maths # mathematics # math
There is no proof AGI is even possible
Navier-Stokes Announcement https://www.claymath.org/news/navier-stokes-announcement/ (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49668706)
25 Fields medalists signed a declaration this week, and it isn't "AI can't do real math" — Tao grants that outright. Their actual complaint: benchmark-race solving skips the writeup, the attribution, the years of human transmission that turn a proof into something the next mathematician can build
‘Immature playground boasting’: Mathematicians uneasy at OpenAI’s latest scalp www.theguardian.com/science/2026... maybe, until math is proven, verified & cognizable by humans, it should be considered “artificial math,” & viewed as a work in progress until human verification is complete?
OpenAI spends 15 million to win 1 million prize. This doesn't seem smart to me! thttps://www.theguardian.com/science/2026/sep/12/openai-mathematicians-millennium-prize-problem?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
When AI outperforms humans, who bears the burden of proof?
11/12 BTW: All this for: “The Millennium Prize for solving the Navier–Stokes problem is $1 million.” A telling in this own story…
10/12 In the end, the proof is in the pudding: without human thought, AI would not exist.
It is a tool born of human ingenuity, and at its best, it works hand in hand with us — not as a replacement for mankind, but as an extension of our drive to keep searching for the answers still out there.
4/12 That is exactly the debate this case is likely to reignite over AI’s role in math, proof, authorship, and trust.
OpenAI did not just chase this proof with brains and bravado — it chased it with industrial-scale compute.
The Clay Mathematics Institute said on 11 September 2026 that the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize problem 'has apparently been settled', without naming OpenAI or anyone else, and its own rules mean no prize can be awarded until a solution is published in a qualifying outlet and survives at least...
The OpenAI math breakthrough controversy explained
The technical dispute focused on Lean proofs. A formal verification might be mathematically sound, but several people argued a machine-checked proof that humans can't actually understand misses the point of mathematics entirely. #software 3/4
"The process is deliberately unhurried, but we will provide updates."
There's interest in using LLM's to produce software that provably is secure under a particular threat model.
Not perfect (no threat model perfectly matches reality) but considered the gold standard. Used to be too labor intensive but that's changing.
oath.tech en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_...
One must remember AI is notorious for hallucinating, just because it has a "proof" doesn't mean its valid. And of course Sam wouldn't do something like this just for the publicity would he?