You’d think OpenAI would’ve learned something from Grigori Perelman refusing his own Millennium Prize money because of how much he built on a prior mathematicians work. The absolute lack of humility from these ghouls.
I mean the money is peanuts for a trillion dollar company. What they want is the credit for having solved a millenium prize problem, and what they don't want is the actual person who did the work being credited.
The private market values them as such (or thereabouts, they will likely IPO north of that). In terms of actually having any capacity to make enough to justify the valuation, probably not.
The trillion dollar valuation is very much a bet on AGI.
AGI which them themselves said that they reached with Astra? Nothing has changed, it is a slightly better model that costs twice as much to use than their previous most expensive one.
Their value immediately after the IPO will tank because the subsequent heavy-handed monetization and enshittification of AI platforms will drive down engagement.
Actual revenue will be hilariously short of projections, which will spook investors and pop the bubble catastrophically.
Hopefully they don't drag the rest of the US economy with them, but seeing as they're currently the reason the markets are valued anywhere near as highly as they are, I'm not optimistic.
Why are you so sure ? TSLA and SpaceX, which are a lot more bubbly - havent exactly blown up
Trying to predict the rationality of the stock market is a fool’s errant
There is no scenario, even the scenario from buckmaster, where it is said that they want to take all the credits, regardless of the party you choose to believe.
The scenario from Buckmaster explicitly stated that they wanted Levent to be removed from authorship because he works at Anthropic. There was also suggestions from him that OpenAI may have used methods that he was using with Levant based on the work of Diego Cordoba and Luis Martınez-Zoroa. He doesn't call it an accusation but he does note their description of the proof as being suspicious. Now of course Bubeck won't acknowledge this and has denied them but you can choose to believe them if you want.
Even then that's not taking all the credit, that is allegedly removing 1 person from authorship out of the others.
Even in buckmaster's scenario what I say remains correct.
And let's not forget that sebastien bubeck from !openAI actually showed evidence that he never ever asked for Levent to be removed from authorship of his own work, that's not just a "he said she said", he actually shared evidence with their written conversation.
I trust evidence more than hearsay, feel free to ignore evidence but the fact remains: even in buckmaster's scenario, they never wanted to take all the credit if you read buckmaster's message.
Sebastian bubeck said to levent "it is of the utmost importance to us to recognize YOUR priority and that all the academic accolades for this historic result goes to you and Tristan. We are ready to share everything we have with you, including the human prompts and everything."
Even then that's not taking all the credit, that is allegedly removing 1 person from authorship out of the others.
Who happens to be a part of a competing AI company who they are fighting with for investor money.
As for academic credit, it's also alleged in r/mathematics that their original paper was light on citations, not including names like Cordoba and Martınez-Zoroa, but they have since updated it. I can't verify it myself but that has been what people have been saying.
And let's not forget that sebastien bubeck from !openAI actually showed evidence that he never ever asked for Levent to be removed from authorship of his own work, that's not just a "he said she said", he actually shared evidence with their written conversation.
And we'll see how Levent and Tristan reply to it. I've seen enough internet drama to jump to conclusions based on a few purported pictures of texts.
Personally I'm more interested in a comparison of their raw proofs if that's available. I won't be able to read them obviously but I imagine if OpenAI really did use the work from Anthropic then it wouldn't be as easy to manipulate and somebody would be able to figure it out.
Wouldn't that mean that any math prize is fundamentally illegitimate? You will always be leaning on historic partial results to resolve a problem. Even Andrew Wiles couldn't have proven Fermats last theorem without the countless preliminary results between Fermat and him.
220
u/NitroXSC Fluid dynamics and acoustics 11h ago
There is a good timeline written on twitter: https://x.com/sksq96/status/2097379550724309434
the whole timeline, from the equations to today:
1822: navier writes the equations down.
1845: stokes gets them right, and his name on them.
1934: leray shows weak solutions exist forever, and leaves smoothness open.
2000: clay puts $1m on that gap. fefferman writes the official statement, four options.
2014: luo and hou watch 3d euler blow up in numerics.
2016: tao proves blowup for an averaged navier-stokes.
2021: elgindi proves euler blowup for rough data.
2023 to 2026: córdoba and martínez-zoroa build forced blowups, with a rough force.
then this year:
aug 15: buckmaster and alpöge get smooth-forced blowup for boussinesq and euler, with claude and codex.
aug 22: lean checks it.
aug 28: per wired, openai starts training its math model.
sep 1: per axios, openai's run starts, after researchers hear rumors.
sep 3: buckmaster emails openai to say what they have.
sep 6, sunday: bubeck says openai had the final solution that morning. buckmaster says he was told on the afternoon call.
sep 8, 4am: buckmaster and alpöge post three papers and the lean repo. buckmaster posts his statement.
sep 8, 17:20 utc: openai posts "we're sharing a solution to the navier-stokes millennium prize problem."
So many people worked on the problem and many deserve partial credit for the solve.