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-M1a824ecbe0abfb42f29617d8> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tf866419d43752e9c-Ma2f40d474074676c2fea1893 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
