Not really - if you read beyond the headlines of "mathematicians don't like AI", and your own imagined (incorrect) reasons they may have for that "AI is stupid", then the truth seems a bit more interesting.

If you want to abide by your own words and judge the situation on it's merit, then you need to look at the specifics, meaning the OpenAI proof itself (166 pages), and the analysis of it that is only just beginning. Assuming that the proof is wonderful and provides much insight into Navier-Stokes is just as dumb a take as assuming that it doesn't. Judge it on its merit.

The Scientific American article is sadly paywalled, but at least part of the discussion is based on the paper below, whose work the OpenAI proof appears to build upon.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.20803

When discussing the proof itself, below, with Sonnet, and asking it to explain the distinction between a function being smooth and analytic, one aspect that appears interesting is that the OpenAI forcing function is apparently constructed out of "bump functions", meaning that it is not a uniform force acting upon the flow but rather a highly engineered pattern of pokes, localized in time and space, which as another commenter in this thread notes sounds similar to Maxwell's Demon - another theoretical force, that neither tells us anything about Brownian motion nor the 2nd "law" of thermodynamics.

So, we'll have to wait for mathematicians to continue to analyze the proof, and determine to what extent is does deliver on providing insights into Navier Stokes, and any potential improvement to it, that was the goal of setting it as a Millenium Prize in the first place.

https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/32d9f210-8b73-45e0-91bc-82a30aef8...