🏅 Top traders

Does it have to be certified by Clay?

@realTomBayes no

@jim @Bayesian : i dispute what id call an early resolution: neither the Wikipedia page cited in this market's description, nor clay which is the one that created the prizes, say that this millennium prize is solved.

@nikthink this is a market about whether a millennium prize problem gets solved in 2026. A millennium prize problem was solved so it resolves as yes

@jim : who verified that it was solved?

@nikthink Lean did. And mathematicians (not from OpenAI) wrote down the exact statement, and others carefully reviewed the statement.

It's not "official", but it seems fully reasonable to not wait 2 years for Clay to reach a verdict.

several groups ran the lean verification. still a non-zero chance the proof is flawed but it more than clears my bar.

OpenAI (@OpenAI) on X

https://manifold.markets/calour/did-openai-just-solve-navier-stokes

https://mastodon.social/@tristanbuckmaster/117233413705701198

@jim is this about whether the solution is announced / communicated in 2026 or whether the whatever its name is institute is confident enough that the problem was solved that they give out the prize in 2026 (which might cause much delay)

@Bayesian https://manifold.markets/jim/ai-solves-millennium-prize-problem#r0ybcfqrxz

@Bayesian the criterion is this right « There is consensus among leading experts in the relevant field that the problem has been solved »

@DottedCalculator 👀

@FlorisvanDoorn jim order up

idk how to write millenium either but apparently it takes two n's so i edited it

@Bayesian Clay Institute Prize Problems

This market is due some fresh attention. There may be True Believers on both sides so maybe place some limit orders if you want action.

I'm curious how you'll distinguish between these outcomes:

• Human assistance to the AI is allowed

• AI assistance to humans is not sufficient for resolution

If an AI writes most of a proof but the result has slight issues requiring a human to think hard to fix, who did most of the work? Will you try to identify the hardest crux of the problem and determine whether it was overcome by the AI or the human? What if the human does not reveal exactly which parts were AI-driven?

I think a likely scenario is that a problem could be solved by a human working in tandem with LLMs, and that it would be implausible for either party to have solved it on their own. I'd put mana on Yes if it's deemed that "the human would've been unable to solve it without the assistance of AI" resolves to Yes.

No, and it will not be close to either.

@alVere no, but it will be fairly close ;P