And to add to that, this is mathematics. A proof in Lean is extremely strong evidence, which is something we don't have in, say, medicine or experimental physics.
If someone claimed they cured cancer or solved cold fusion, "wait for consensus" is reasonable. But far less so in (formal) math.
@nature.com's take on last week's events in mathematics — and the controversy over OpenAI's announcement that it had solved the Millennium Prize Problem on the Navier-Stokes equations www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Its solved a Millennium prize, so depends how you categorise productivity in mathematical discovery. I agree that diffusion is still in early stages, but its phenomenally powerful and useful. And the emissions aren't very high despite weird accounting. "Russia's state-company coal" isn't very big.
OpenAI says an internal model just solved a 90-year-old math problem. Mathematicians are not convinced yet.
The company claims an unreleased model, coordinating roughly 10,000 sub-agents over 88 hours, proved that the Navier-Stokes equations (one of seven Millennium Prize Problems) break down un...
Proofs and Prompts is a community blog about Math and AI. Since we started it a month ago, 42 blogposts have appeared, covering many aspects of math and AI. You can follow this mathstodon account to get notified when there are new posts. We also wrote a post about our experiences running the blog: https:// proofsandprompts.com/2026/09/1 6/one-month-of-proofs-and-prompts/ # introduction # proofsand…
Twenty-five Fields Medalists just signed a letter about how one AI lab treats outside researchers.
Two mathematicians say OpenAI learned of their approach to a Millennium Prize problem, then put a research team and massive compute behind it to claim it first.
The hosts of Proofs and Prompts A little more than a month ago, we started this blog. It has grown a lot faster than we could have ever anticipated. We are grateful to everyone for the trust they have put in this project and in us. We are amazed by the engagement and the interest […]
As a vaguely fluid mechanics person, it's fine. It's not the kind of equation for which there's "a" solution, the Millennium Prize question was never about anything of practical significance. The intellectual value was in being able to prove it.
"A proof is not a solver" bsky.app/profile/larg...
Listen Morty—Anthropic's Claude just formalized Wiles' Fermat proof in eleven days. Thirteen million lines of Lean. Humans budgeted a decade. Three centuries of margin-note drama, then a chat box notarizes the homework. What a waste of blackboard real estate. day259.070
Really cool how all it takes to solve Millennium Prize Problems is a Python loop and a chatbot
OpenAI says it solved Navier-Stokes. Nobody has seen the proof. thenextweb.com/news/openai-...
For math, specifically, Terence Tao makes a very good case that the proof is only a small point of the whole undertaking, and skipping straight to the proof is salting the earth: mathandai.org
OpenAI has made 'significant progress' on a second $1m Millennium Prize problem
Rumor is they're close to solving two of the remaining Millennium problems
Scott Aaronson (ex-OpenAI, theoretical computer scientist) "I’m told that the AI companies,
having been burned by the hostile response to the Navier-Stokes proof, are now sitting on solutions to some very major problems until they figure out a better way to handle things"
"Whatever our goals are, we’ve operationalized them primarily through proving theorems. Almost all papers or PhD theses have a main theorem, and ostensibly a proof of it. But it should be clear that the goal of mathematics is not to prove theorems..."
proofsandprompts.com/2026/09/14/a...
It’s easy to forget that mathematics is play
Typesafe AI announces that its AI has returned the following proof of another Millennium Prize problem
{"probability_that_riemann_hypothesis_is_true": 0.0}
For one thing, we will need to massively rethink what we mean by "credit" and the role it plays in the mathematical community
Will CMI declare a Millennium Prize Problem solved by December 31, 2027?
📉 YES 35% → 9% (-26) in 7d
Polymarket ↗
Millennium prize problems are falling, politicians are p(doom)-posting, why do you think you'll be able to sway anyone who made up their minds about LLMs years ago, and why do you need to convince them when the halls of power already resemble the LW open thread circa 2011?
With two solved, there are still five Millennium Prize Problems to go. What are they, and which ones are likely to fall to AI? Great story by @manonym025.bsky.social www.scientificamerican.com/article/whic...
Link smf.emath.fr/node/3699662 Sentence starts with: "While this [openAI's announcment of a verified proof of forced Navier-Stokes anomalies] is undoubtedly a major step forward on this issue, ..."
Twenty years ago, when the idea of AI taking over the world in our lifetimes still struck most of us as the unconstrained fantasy of those who knew too much science fiction and too little science, many of us would say things like: Look, the part of the story that’s wildly implausible is that a […]
[This is a guest post by Ben Antieau, crossposted from his blog. This blog post was initially written in a different file format and converted using AI. — T.] To resolve a central tension in the practice of mathematics by academics, I suggest the parallel with fast food and its attendant slow food movement. Three […]
Assuming it holds, "The ROI on their Millennium Prize solution was negative!" is pure cope. There are much easier ways to make $1MM than solving one of the Clay Millennium Problems. No one does it to turn a profit. Do your get rich quick schemes involve winning a Nobel Prize?
I don't know what to tell someone who finds these gotcha questions more compelling evidence than LLMs solving millennium prize problems & erdos problems.
How could it do that if it was as dumb as a rock? You can ask a parrot to solve the Jacobian conjecture and it will just squawk at you.
[This is a guest post by Henry Cohn. This blog post was initially written in a different file format and converted using AI. — T.] In this essay I’d like to discuss the role of AI-generated solutions in mathematics and why many mathematicians are justifiably concerned about a mismatch of values. Let’s start with the […]
When inventing is not enough. ~ Lisa Valentini. https:// proofsandprompts.com/2026/09/1 5/when-inventing-is-not-enough/ # AI4Math
on the one hand we need you to believe that our training regime is so good that it can teach the model to solve millennium prize problems but on the other hand we want you to believe it's so bad that it will definitely fake being good while secretly being evil
there are basically two aspects of this story that make it important, in my view:
OpenAI spent an estimated $15m setting 10,000 AI agents on a Millennium Prize Problem, then claimed the resulting proof as its latest triumph. The model’s substantial debt to existing human work received rather less prominence. www.theguardian.com/science/2026...
It has been pretty revolutionary in mathematics. It is solving 100 year old problems on like a weekly level (biggest one being disproving the Jacobean conjecture), and was instrumental in solving the navier stokes equations, which is a millennium prize problem
A longstanding unsolved problem in mathematics since the early 20th century solved by OpenAI in 88 hours with a swarm of around 10,000 AI agents running an internal frontier model.
#ai #llm #automation #aiagents #aiagent #openai #agenticai #agentic
openai.com/index/navier...
ChatGPT solved a millennium prize problem and has been instrumental in solving several other open, stubborn problems in mathematics this year. Is your head under a rock?
Lisa Valentini, PhD student at the University of Cambridge We are mathematicians: we seek answers to problems that, at present, have no solution. To do so, we study the work of other colleagues, adapt it to the context we are interested in and, starting from there, look for new solutions. Now, the problem to be […]
OpenAI's conduct here—not just that they produced the proof (significant) but how (expensively, in a rush to scoop others) and why (to show off)—is worth paying attention to even if you're not interested in AI or math.
Because turning scholarship into a commodity with a price tag has implications.
Look, I get that you're probably really tired of "AI solved math problem!!!" headlines at this point.
But OpenAI's claim to have solved the Navier-Stokes problem—and the controversy around it, and the implications for scholarship—is significant.
It is worth taking 5 minutes to get the gist of.
The math proof recently cracked by a team using AI to brute force the problem is a great example of how AI should be used. As a mind multiplier, not a mind subtractor.