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-Ma2f40d474074676c2fea1893> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tf866419d43752e9c-M698f0c636cd307bfede0a0f2 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
