I imagine all the mathematicians in the room for the meeting: "So we have the choice of giving it to the AI company or the mathematician whose data they stole." ... "We math people agree the math prize goes to the math person, right?"
On Wed, Sep 9, 2026, 09:06 Quan Tesla <[email protected]> wrote: > Technically, OpenAI exploited AI speed to be the first to submit a 166 > page complete thereom using a different approach. In a narrow sense, that > gives them the prize advantage. > > However, in a more general scientific and IP sense, if AI didn't ingest a > "benchmark" model, it would probable not have attempted an "alternative" or > "different" approach. Therefore, the actual date of "prior art" proof moves > further back. > > A probably caused B, the former had to exist for the latter to emerge. > Therefore, the former existed a-priori. > > This is not a patent application. The branches may have physically borne > fruit first, but the evidence of an ingested root-recipe stemmed from the > nutrient uptake. > > Chickens and Eggs > > On Wed, 09 Sept 2026, 09:40 SunTzuWarmaster, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> There's potentially a perfect ending to this story - it's that the two >> human authors get the prize money and openAI gete a funding round. >> >> I believe that humans currently award the prize money, right? >> >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2026, 06:28 Quan Tesla <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Thank you for sharing. This is just "wow!", but no surprises, really. >>> >>> It's not true that collaborating with a public, or subscribed-to LLM >>> auto-invalidates IP claims. Privately, LLMs vlaim confidentiality and >>> limited historical memory span. As my recent research report proves, this >>> seems to be a convenient false fabrication. >>> >>> E g., recently, a public, non-subscribed to AI quoted me in a >>> conversation we had back in March, 2025. Selective memories. >>> >>> However, full conversational transcripts are advised and best to publish >>> a short note on Zenodo, even as a preprint. Unless international laws >>> recently changed, my recent investigation concluded as such. >>> >>> Any public submission by author(s)without licensing or "prior art" >>> claims asserted, probably would invalidate claims. Apparently, even.journal >>> submissions are at risk. Two words: "Prior Art". >>> >>> Based on the document provided publicly, and speaking as an IP producer, >>> it's my opinion that "prior art" can easily be demonstrated in this case. >>> Smart move! >>> >>> Unless OpenAI's public policy clearly and legally stated ceding of IP >>> rights as a condition of use of their AI tool, and if they could provide >>> proof of the user opting in, AI remains but a tool - not a legal entity and >>> the IP belongs to the human-in-the-lead of the collaboration. >>> >>> Indeed, this is a potentially LLM-shattering moment. When collaborating >>> as "human architect and researcher" with AI, humans must fight back to >>> retain rights to decades of processed and refined information, especially >>> for patterns, discoveries, insights, intuition, ideas, approaches, and >>> formalizations. >>> >>> At this stage, EU laws seem to be far more IP and privacy friendly. >>> >>> On Wed, 09 Sept 2026, 06:48 Shashank Yadav, <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> This statement is worth reading: >>>> https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf >>>> I bet that rumors of someone affiliated with a competitor solving this >>>> triggered the sudden Open AI blitz (~10,000 parallel agents taking over 100 >>>> billion tokens over 88 hours). This was not Open AI models doing math >>>> independently, but building on the researchers' private work ingested >>>> through their own platform. They even tried to get Tristan to remove his >>>> Anthropic co-author from the work. It seems there is no intellectual >>>> property claims if you involve someone else's AI to develop your work. >>>> >>>> >>>> regards, Shashank >>>> The task is not impossible. <https://muskdeer.blogspot.com/> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Quan Tesla <[email protected]> >>>> To: "AGI"<[email protected]> >>>> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2026 09:06:47 +0530 >>>> Subject: Re: [agi] OpenAI solves Navier Stokes >>>> >>>> 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-M698f0c636cd307bfede0a0f2> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tf866419d43752e9c-M1e9c5b7e873d51483fc2f1fe Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
