Re:Responsible Release of AI-Generated Mathematics
by pegasus on Friday October 02, 2026 @04:08PM
(#49937999)
> If you don't believe OpenAI, that's your choice.
...and, I would add, it would be an informed choice, wouldn't you agree?
Re:Responsible Release of AI-Generated Mathematics
by stevenhuang on Friday October 02, 2026 @05:39PM
(#49938928)
You don't believe OpenAI given their assessment, so it seems you're not operating on evidence in the first place
Re:Responsible Release of AI-Generated Mathematics
by pegasus on Saturday October 03, 2026 @08:37AM
(#49943737)
So you just take OpenAI at their word, no questions asked? You imagine them to be unbiased in this matter?
Re:Responsible Release of AI-Generated Mathematics
by stevenhuang on Saturday October 03, 2026 @10:58AM
(#49944880)
At this point it takes some weird epistemics to think they'd need to outright fabricate the outcome of an investigation when countless other mathematical breakthroughs have been solved the same.
They are certainly biased, but I don't think such bias is strong enough to cause them to lie about facts. We may agree to disagree here.
See https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/
> Following an investigation, we have confirmed that Buckmaster’s Codex prompts over the two months preceding this announcement and paper on September 8, 2026, could not have influenced the system in any way, including through training. The OpenAI internal model used for this result was developed through large-scale reinforcement learning on top of a previously pretrained model. Our proofs also differ significantly. In the Euler case, Alpöge and Buckmaster proved a result with external forcing, while OpenAI’s system proved a result without external forcing.