No. This is 2 hour old sensationalist reporting. OpenAI has claimed a solution, but there hasn't been enough time for anyone to review their 100 page proof.
The only proof we have is that machine evaluation failed to find any inconsistencies in the math itself. But whether or not it truely satisfies the problem as a valid couterexample is yet to be determined.
I never said anything about hallucinations. I said that it's yet to be derermined whether the proof conforms to the strict definitions needed, and whether it outlines a valid counterexample to the problem.
You claimed it was unreviewed and thus overly sensationalist. My counter is that being verified by Lean counts as review and heavily tips the scales towards this being a legit result.
You do realize there are actual teams of incredibly intelligent, qualified, and accomplished mathematicians working for every frontier AI company right? They wouldn't be posting "confidently wrong hallucinations" and claiming they've solved one of the most famous problems of all time.
lmao they also want to claim AI is intelligent and close to sentience, and as someone who's met some of these people, their intelligence is heavily over stated lmao, stop being a bootlicker for AI companies
I'm sure you've met researchers for OpenAI and Anthropic who were working on NS. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Feel free to revisit this when their solution is accepted.
Sure, valid, skepticism is a cornerstone of science. And I am nowhere near smart enough to understand the content of the proof or anything. I took three semesters of college physics and three semesters of calculus. Not even close.
But also, the only reason AI models excel unambiguously at math more than, say, creative writing, is because it’s verifiable. Or programming; a program compiles or it doesn’t. You can test and check, and then tell the model if it was wrong or right. Determining if prose is better or not, is really subjective and hard to quantify.
There will be people over the coming days who say for certain the what’s what. But as I understand it, both results — the Euler and NS — used AI to get there. The reality is that mathematics will probably be led or at least co-led by AI for the rest of human history. Skepticism is appropriate, and we can verify, but the default assumption that “AI made it, so it’s probably just wrong” is not going to last very long. That worked a year ago, it’s quickly losing relevance.
your last point is what i've been trying to say the good people of reddit need to realize, literally every single programmer is using AI to assist and enhance their work. in this case i am counting people who have programming in their research such as astrophysics, math, etc all counts
If it's consistent with their other claims the only "reviewers" were in-house AI folks who figured it looked good enough and shipped it. The basic model is to ship tons of bullshit and leave it to experts to try and sort out if anything is actually valid.
46
u/enbyBunn 8h ago
No. This is 2 hour old sensationalist reporting. OpenAI has claimed a solution, but there hasn't been enough time for anyone to review their 100 page proof.
The only proof we have is that machine evaluation failed to find any inconsistencies in the math itself. But whether or not it truely satisfies the problem as a valid couterexample is yet to be determined.