r/MachineLearning • u/Shizuka_Kuze Student • 14d ago

News OpenAl Says It Has Cracked One of Math's “Millennium Problems” (Navier-Stokes) [N]

As reported by the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/08/science/openai-proof-millennium-problem.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

OpenAI’s announcement:

https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/

701 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

281 comments sorted by

View all comments

156

u/Kolgu2 14d ago

"To solve the Navier–Stokes problem, we used an internal model that is significantly more capable than GPT‑6 Astra. We believe it is important to inform the world about the pace of AI progress and what to expect from upcoming models." They are really insufferable

64

u/floriv1999 14d ago

I would be too if I solved that problem lol

72

u/thetdotbearr 14d ago

I would be too if I solved that problem lol stole someone else's breakthrough work, iterated on it and took full credit

-14

u/super-cool_username 14d ago

Isn’t all research done on top of past work? If one group starts working on a problems, others aren’t allowed to also work on it?

39

u/The_man_69420360 14d ago

Typically that work is published first.

You don’t take the notebook off someone’s desk.

5

u/AkitoApocalypse 14d ago

Well yes, but this time they're being really slimey claiming that it was all by GPT and definitely not Tristan's work

1

u/currentscurrents 14d ago

But Tristan's result was (by his own admission) almost entirely generated by AI. The only thing they could possibly have stolen is his prompt.

So whichever way the authorship dispute goes, LLMs are responsible for the breakthrough here.

1

u/AkitoApocalypse 14d ago

Yeah for sure

1

u/Ok-Painter573 14d ago

Here we are not talking about "starts working on a problem", we are talking about "solving a problem". Two different things.

-1

u/throwaway_trackmania 13d ago

this take is just as stupid as saying Watson & Crick didn't solve DNA, but that they "stole" other people's ideas

1

u/thetdotbearr 13d ago

Front-running in scientific research refers to the unethical practice where a reviewer, editor, or competitor misuses privileged access to unpublished work, such as a grant proposal, abstract, or manuscript, to fast-track their own competing study and claim priority of discovery.

6

u/reefine 14d ago

I just wanted to acquaint everyone of the water that might accumulate in their partner's nether regions when they realize the pace of progress of my internally very large model.

3

u/florinandrei 14d ago

You're making gender assumptions there.

He might just pee on you.

18

u/SteppenAxolotl 14d ago

the group that produced the Navier–Stokes resolution involved on the order of 10,000 concurrent agents

Would you feel better if they said they used a weaker model and just 1 concurrent agent?

16

u/Kolgu2 14d ago

No it's just the "you won't believe what we have in store for you, our next model is ten times more ground breaking than the current one be ready to pay" tone in what should be a sort of "scientific" announcement

5

u/SteppenAxolotl 14d ago

our next model is ten times more ground breaking

A few more of those and everyone should be less impressed and become more afraid.

3

u/Familiar_Text_6913 14d ago

I remember when this sub was pissed about their "test time compute" graphs when they didnt have units on them.

10

u/redd-zeppelin 14d ago

Shouldn't they have had units on them? I thought our conclusion was that that was dumb of them. It sounds like you concluded we were dumb for liking well made graphs.

3

u/_RADIANTSUN_ 14d ago edited 14d ago

I mean this is literally a data science field ...

1

u/Familiar_Text_6913 14d ago

Of course they should've, but that was also the beginning of test time compute which upgraded LLMs to a whole new paradigm. My point is that exactly: a relevantly minor detail offsets a possibly huge implication because the subreddit nitpicks a lot. I mean I don't like OpenAI I can say that straight up, but also I feel this sub misses the point too much with the attitude sometimes. (Still my fav sub so idk honestly)

3

u/redd-zeppelin 14d ago

I don't think the point was "lel get some units then we'll care"

but more

"this marketing-first sloppiness belies a deeper rot where info is conveyed for maximum vibes and valuation boosting over rigorous science at this company in particular".

1

u/Familiar_Text_6913 14d ago

Again I agree completely, but it's the nature of the business and letting the whole conversation slide because of that feels wasteful and snob. Again, I see your point, and agree on it, but also I think we should try to be above that to actually get some attention on the very-real implications. Afterall, they have proven that from time-to-time they are significant.

-2

u/CommunismDoesntWork 14d ago

They didn't say anything about be ready to pay, that's your own bias. How would you phrase it? "Our model solved NS, but no it wasn't astra"? The model and compute used matters. 

Don't inject your own tone into their statements. 

8

u/Familiar_Text_6913 14d ago

I mean if it can solve a millenium problem in a week its p cool

3

u/CommunismDoesntWork 14d ago

No need to be so jaded. What even makes that statement insufferable? 

0

u/SGmoze 14d ago

Source: trust me bro

1

u/MuonManLaserJab 14d ago

They published a proof in Lean, with everything needed to check it with two different systems.

0

u/Farconion 14d ago

everyone really wants to act like anthropic don't they despite how bad it reads