Any successful proof seems likely to come from a team that includes both very good mathematicians and advanced AI programs. But which vibe will win credit in the public eye?
It's Google DeepMind, that's an AI lab. If it's Terrence Tao using GPT-6, that's a mathematics department. If it's David Budden using Claude, that's an AI lab. If the people involved are professors at a university, that's probably a mathematics department. If it seems the proof was marketing for an AI product, that's probably an AI lab.
If it's a frontier AI lab consulting with prominent mathematicians, that's still an AI lab driven solution.
Resolves based on my judgement.
There will be no AI clarifications added to this market's description.
1,000People are also trading
@ElliotGlazer I think this is (implicitly) underrating the likelihood of a non-AI Navier-Stokes refutation in the next 2-3 years, what's your probability on that conditional on (say) AI progress totally stalling?
@ShimmeringDroplet out of curiosity, has there been tangible progress on a human NS solution that would lead one to believe it would be solved in 2-3 years?
@ShimmeringDroplet I'm pretty sure most of Litt's optimism is regarding the Tao-DeepMind collaboration, which the market description said would resolve in favor of the lab!
@nathanwei Yeah if it's a frontier AI lab consulting with prominent mathematicians, I think that's still an AI lab driven solution.