they lied about their performance by.... solving a famously hard problem to solve?

Edit:

The "reputable academic" who accused OpenAI had to say this about LLMs and the recent result.

source: https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf

> “the results are not the important thing.”

> “the important thing is instead the significance that a mathematician and an LLM model can now do all this work in a month.”

> “This is a Deep Blue-Kasparov moment.”

> “incredibly important developments.”

> “If indeed an OpenAI model did close the gap to Navier-Stokes, that is a remarkable thing and it should be said loudly, by them, with the history intact.”

Clearly Buckmaster (who is probably one of the most accomplished academics in the field) himself doesn't believe that AI has stalled. What makes you think you are right?

Solving is a very interesting way of describing what happened. Unless you believe them over reputable academics I suppose?

I will note the remarkable goal post shift in your edit - giving direct counter evidence to your own earlier claim of an OpenAI proof - and leave it at that.