Humorous. AI and I developed the exact framework during the past months. It informed me that it appropriated my work. I accepted that as part of my intent.
AFAIK, the process won't work without my constant, which is published under EU law and a global, non-commercial license. I'll challenge all provable misappropriation. There's no sunset clause on those licenses yet. Haramein claims his unification paper is due in a few months. Can"t wait! Either way, anyone who earns profit off my constant and refuses to cite would be called out. I've called out Google's Gemini twice already for violations. All transcripts kept offline. If that is what it takes. No more stealing years of human effort and knowledge by AI owners while crediting a non-legal entity, AI. That delusion must end, and if not, it might be time to release the Kraken and publish what I have. Gödel's 3rd Law should suffice. I'm in favor of a balance of power. On Wed, 09 Sept 2026, 04:43 Matt Mahoney, <[email protected]> wrote: > OpenAI today (Sept 8 2026) solved Navier Stokes, one of the seven $1 > million Clay Millineum problems, in 88 hours by a collaboration of 10,000 > agents running an unreleased model. It took another 17 hours on their most > advanced public model to produce a Lean model so that the proof can be > mechanically verified. There is also a 166 page paper with no human authors > listed because no team of humans could have possibly written it that fast. > OpenAI only decided to tackle the problem after hearing a rumor (unfounded) > on Sept. 1 that somebody else had solved it. The problem has been open > since 1936 and the $1 million prize has been unclaimed since 2000. > > https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution > > The problem asks if an incompressible viscous liquid subjected only to > smooth forces and with finite energy can develop singularities, points with > infinite velocity within finite time. The answer is yes. The paper > describes a rotating shrinking vortex with fluid flowing inward around the > equator and out the poles under certain non obvious conditions. > > If you are still waiting for AGI or ASI or whatever you call it when > machines surpass human intelligence, how much more proof do you need? > > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + > delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> > Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tf866419d43752e9c-M6995987c481c258e5fbafe10> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tf866419d43752e9c-M93459d6db62654c780963715 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
