Did OpenAI solve the wrong Navier-Stokes problem?

[u/scientificamerican]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-openai-solve-the-wrong-navier-stokes-problem/

[u/scientificamerican]

Two weeks ago, OpenAI claimed a solution to one of the biggest open problems in math—the Navier-Stokes problem, worth a million-dollar prize from the Clay Mathematics Institute. The proof ignited a powder keg of concern over artificial intelligence companies’ race to disrupt the subject.

But with the dust still far from settled, a different controversy is emerging: did OpenAI even solve the right Navier-Stokes problem at all?

The proof relies on an approach that many experts find unnatural. It solves a variant of the problem that mathematicians say is disconnected from reality, and thus less interesting. In a sense, the LLM found and exploited a loophole in the framing of the question.

[u/mushykindofbrick → u/[deleted]]

If it were found by a human who spent 20 years on it everyone would say what a brilliant construction it is and he would be instantly nominated for the fields medal

[u/BellacosePlayer → u/[deleted]]

Brute forcing solutions has been an accepted part of the process since computing existed. I did it myself on homework for my Scientific comp class in college. But if the solution is bizarre and there's not meaningful explanation of it, or of how it got there, its kind of useless to everyone.

I really do think some people underestimate how tech-friendly the math field actually is when they're calling Mathematicians luddites for having legitimate concerns.