It's worth mentioning that OpenAI will not be eligible for the Millennium Prize for quite a while. Per the rules listed https://www.claymath.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/millenni... , Clay Mathematics Institute have some requirements to make this process deliberately slow.

1) The solution must be published in a qualifying outlet, i.e. a peer-reviewed math journal. Publishing on your own website (which is what OpenAI did) or posting arXiv does not count.

2) At least two full years must pass after publication in a qualifying journal, before CMI will even consider evaluating it. The intent is to give the maths community time to scrutinize the solution.

Realistically, they'll be eligible for a prize ~2.5 years from now, or around 2029.

▲ ngruhn an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> or posting arXiv does not count

The Poincaré conjecture guy also broke that rule. They wanted to give him the prize anyway but he refused. OpenAI announced they would also not claim the prize.

Looks like no one wants this prize lol

▲

tristanj an hour ago | parent [-]

You might be right. At this rate, if AI solves the remaining five problems, we're heading towards a hilarious situation where all the Millennium Problems are solved, but nobody wants to claim the prize money.

	▲	jtpmath a few seconds ago \| parent [-]
		I did and was intending to claim the prize, that is why I worked with GPT-4 and GPT-5 to program the algorithms that lead to the breakthrough. You think NS is a surprise? Wait until you see that my NS counterexample was based on my RH disproof.

▲ tancop an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The ultimate decision as to whether a publication qualifies as a “Qualifying Outlet” shall reside in the sole and unfettered discretion of CMI. CMI may, in its discretion, relax or remove one or more of the conditions listed in Section 6(e) above if it has received advice from experts in the field of the Problem, chosen by CMI, that a published solution is likely to be correct.

Looks like even a blog post is good enough, they just need to do the review by themselves.

	▲	tristanj an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Interesting. It seems this carve-out was added when they rewrote the rules in 2018. In the original rules [0], it says: `Before consideration, a proposed solution must be published in a refereed mathematics journal of world-wide repute, and it must also have general acceptance in the mathematics community two years after that publication. Following this two-year waiting period, the [Clay Mathematics Institute] will decide whether a solution merits detailed consideration.` There's no option for CMI discretion. They probably rewrote the rules to avoid another Poincaré conjecture situation, where the paper was only published on arXiv and not in a mathematics journal. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20000622023328/http://www.clayma...
	▲	noodletheworld an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		My opinion is that it is pretty clear that they’re not going to do that. > The rules governing the prizes describe the process for evaluating what has been achieved and for assigning credit. The process is deliberately unhurried, but we will provide updates. I think “you don’t get anything straight away for rushing your AI into the maths problems, not even credit” aligns pretty fairly with what the fields medalists are concerned with.

▲ vatsachak an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Who cares about the prize and the outdated methods?

OpenAI and Anthropic might have 3 millennium problems by December