OpenAI avrebbe giocato sporco sul problema della dimostrazione completa del problema di esistenza e fluidità di Navier–StokesIl professore di matematica della New York University Tristan #Buckmaster ha annunciato martedì tre dimostrazioni con una scoperta preliminare su uno dei principali problemi irrisolti della matematica teorica. I risultati, realizzati in collaborazione con il matematico di #Anthropic Levent #Alpöge e utilizzando modelli di intelligenza artificiale Codex e Claude, sono significativi di per sé — ma sono anche accompagnati da un'insolita controversia che circonda i tentativi di OpenAI di risolvere lo stesso problema.Secondo la dichiarazione, un'iniziativa parallela di #OpenAI si è basata sul loro lavoro prima che diventasse pubblico, dando origine a un groviglio di rivalità accademiche e affermazioni contrastanti.techcrunch.com/2026/09/08/open@matematica

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
5 comments in c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world view that post
[–] 41 points 2 months ago (1 child)

"Mathematicians solved prestigious problem and Codex helped" would have been great propaganda for OpenAI, but they managed to make an easy win into a PR disaster. Instead the message researchers around the world take away is probably: "Don't use Codex it steals your research data and OpenAI will publish it as their own".

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 2 months ago

    I think the whole story is that a rumour started about Anthropic solving a millennium problem and OpenAI went in full panic mode trying to beat them to it.

    Turns out an anthropic employee was a coauthor on the original paper, but that was something he was doing on the side, not under the Anthropic's institution (using several LLMs, including OpenAI's and Anthropic's).

    Allegedly, OpenAI then tried to coerce the original author into authoring their proof and cutting off the anthropic guy.

    These dicks just wanted to be the only ones involved and it backfired.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 2 months ago*

    The data stealing company seemse to be stealing data

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 2 months ago*

    This is so utterly depressing to me. Although the proof could still be wrong, as it has not been the first time that such bombastic announcements were made, only for people to realise there were actual bugs in Lean and therefore the proof was not valid, we are facing a time were models can actually start cracking some hard maths problems, and these models are owned by a few who totally miss the point of what doing mathematics actually means.

    Doing maths was not, and should not be about "producing true statements/compilable verification code". It is about understanding, creating and sharing ideas and structures and studying their interconnections. Having an oracle provide a list of true theorems with sloppy Lean proofs that no one understands does not provide any insight.

    So I guess we are now pushing hard the idea that we should (if we indeed can) mass produce maths results and have mathematicians become glorified clanker nannies who have to read through inane proof assistant code to try and make some sense of it.

    I really feel for the few truly passionate mathematicians and new PhD students entering the field, at a time where all the remaining fun gets sucked out of it. And also I am saddened by the very real possibility that this will make the maths community much more secretive and less cooperative, again, to avoid fucking billionaires swooping in and stealing their results for bragging rights on fucking twitter and inflating their valuation ever more.

    Though to be fair, the mathematicians robbed in this case were also using OpenAI's clanker, so they kind of made their own bed...

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    Using 22 million USD to solve a problem priced 1 million USD is just a beautiful statement.

    And I know, the actual problem solution probably has wider ranging consequences than just earning those 1 million, but still this is such a nice analogy for AI. Wasting so much more on a win than you need.

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/technology@piefed.social view that post
    [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Ja. Wenn die KI bei der Forschung hilft und die Firma/KI so an die unveröffentlichten Ideen kommt, ist es klar, dass die Firma dann absichtlich oder aus Versehen auf die Idee kommt, das selbe zu erforschen.

    Edit: either my memory is betraying me, or there was a German article linked here before.

  • source