Valerio Capraro on Twitter / X

BREAKING: OpenAI’s solution to Navier–Stokes does not match its Lean verification.The most important article to read today is not one of OpenAI’s 700 AI-generated math papers.It is this other paper, making a deep and worrying point:A Lean-verified proof does not… pic.twitter.com/bU7TQdv594— Valerio Capraro (@ValerioCapraro) October 8, 2026

No. 025: Navier-Stokes provenance dispute, Fields Medalists declaration, AI peer review - The Hallway Track

The Hallway Track No. 025 - How AI is affecting the practice of science

OpenAI accused of stealing math proof from expert Andreas Thom | Valerio Capraro posted on the topic | LinkedIn

BREAKING: OpenAI might have stolen another major proof. In a detailed Mathstodon post, which I report in full in the comments, Andreas Thom presents several pieces of evidence suggesting that OpenAI may have trained Astra on conversations in which he and Gábor Kun were working on Gromov’s soficity conjecture, one of the ten problems OpenAI later announced Astra had solved. I know Andreas. We met several times early in our careers. He is an exceptional mathematician, a leading expert on sofic and hyperlinear groups, and one of the most respected scholars in the field. He has spent two decades working on this problem. If his account is correct, this is not a minor dispute over attribution. It would mean that unpublished human work was absorbed into a model and then presented to the world as a breakthrough by the model itself. And if the allegations raised by Levent Alpöge, Tristan Buckmaster, and now Andreas Thom are all substantiated, we are no longer looking at isolated incidents. We may be looking at one of the greatest intellectual scandals in the history of science. AI is not discovering new mathematics. AI is stealing human discovery. | 201 comments on LinkedIn

OpenAI solves Navier–Stokes, but research misconduct concerns remain | Olga Holtz posted on the topic | LinkedIn

OpenAI says its AI has solved a Millennium Prize Problem: Navier–Stokes. A human mathematician asks whether OpenAI committed research misconduct. As a mathematician working at the intersection of mathematics and AI, I find this truly messy while also potentially historic. Three things deserve attention. 1. The fine print IS the mathematics. The claimed construction starts with a three-dimensional incompressible fluid at rest. Under a smooth external force, its velocity becomes unbounded in finite time, even while its kinetic energy stays bounded. Crucially, the force itself remains smooth through the singularity. Forcing is explicitly permitted in Clay’s official breakdown alternatives C and D. Its presence does not disqualify the result. But this construction does not establish blow-up for unforced Navier–Stokes. That distinction matters. 2. This was a research system, not one clever prompt. OpenAI reports roughly 10,000 concurrent agents in the successful group and a result after about 88 hours. The Navier–Stokes effort used approximately 130 billion output tokens; Lean formalization and verification took another 17 hours. Human researchers redirected the effort and used tools to consolidate intermediate insights. The salient part here, as I already wrote earlier, is a new organization of mathematical discovery using an enormous amount of compute, not a faster chatbot. The published Lean formalization is important: there is something concrete for others to check. Let‘s see independent scrutiny of both the proof and whether the formal statement matches the intended theorem. 3. Proof verification is not provenance verification. The result follows the line of attack designed by Spanish mathematicians Diego Córdoba and Luis Martínez Zoroa, who appeared to be close to solving the problem themselves. Tristan Buckmaster has raised concerns about research priority and possible use of private Codex material (his statement is linked to the comment by Guillermo Núñez Ponasso below). Those concerns are not automatic proof of misconduct, yet: OpenAI recognizes Buckmaster and Levent Alpöge’s priority on forced Euler, a related but different problem. It denies accessing their unpublished work. But it also cannot rule out de-identified data from their OpenAI product usage helping improve its models, though it calls that unlikely. Is it though? That ‚leakage’ is quite possible, in my view. If correct, this is an extraordinary result. Let’s get independent verification. And let’s protect unpublished research — but exactly how to protect it from an AI lab if using its tools for this research? Recall that a verified theorem can settle a mathematical question. It cannot, by itself, settle scientific credit or establish that the discovery process was fair. Are you comfortable using an AI lab’s tools when that lab could also become your research competitor? https://lnkd.in/g4HzzUNp #AI #Mathematics #AIforScience #MillenniumProblems #NavierStokes | 54 comments on LinkedIn

Navier-Stokes lost in translation: Why Lean verification of AI...

Autoformalisation is increasingly used to verify mathematical texts, including those generated by AI, as in OpenAI's announced proof of blow-up of solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations. In this...

Mathematician catches AI-generated research error by OpenAI president | Benjamin Golub posted on the topic | LinkedIn

In case you think the problem of science slop is hypothetical, here's something that happened on X yesterday: The president of OpenAI sharing wrong science slop as proud evidence of the power of mathematical AI. Within a day, the mathematician Tony Feng found a gap that undercut the paper's central argument; the author conceded, and (to his credit!) Brockman deleted the tweet as soon as he became aware. Feng was a hero to catch this. The author of the refuted claim is a mathematician but a self-described outsider to this area, with a prior big claim posted and quickly withdrawn. Greg Brockman is not an expert, either. Neither could check what they were amplifying. Heroes catching errors one at a time won't hold against the volume of AI-generated research now coming. We need an automated, independent verification layer for knowledge work, which is what we're building at Refine (refine.ink). Passing such verification should become a necessary step before big claims, especially outside one's own expertise. A link to a bigger-picture post on this is in the comments. | 23 comments on LinkedIn

OpenAI Just Claimed a Huge Math Discovery. Some Academics Are Crying Foul

A landmark announcement by the frontier AI lab has been overshadowed by accusations of impropriety.

Navier-Stokes and Lean

I was working on this week's post on Lean after reading Kevin Hartnett's book  The Proof in the Code: How a Truth Machine Is Transforming Ma...

NIK on Twitter / X

>sam altman: "we tried this because there were rumor on the internet">rumor: math professor close to solving navier-stokes>the professor: using codex for a year>openai: has all his logs>checked every codex session tagged to N-S>found the most promising one>spun up 10,000… pic.twitter.com/RInlP88gmA— NIK (@ns123abc) September 8, 2026

Can AI replace mathematicians? Vienna researchers weigh in

In September, OpenAI announced that some 10,000 AI agents partially 'solved' the Navier–Stokes problem, one of the most prestigious open challenges in mathematics. University of Vienna mathematicians Nathanaël Berestycki and Vera Fischer agree that the field will never be the same, but argue that maths is far more than producing proofs at speed.

On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

We’re sharing an AI-generated solution to the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem, including a writeup and a formal proof in Lean.

No, AI hasn’t officially solved Navier–Stokes. Yet

PropAIganda, now with a Millennium Prize Problem

GitHub - openai/NavierStokesAndEuler at 8937a8f4cbc7abaab5e9e97d1cc7f5d2319d9538

Lean certificates accompanying Navier-Stokes and Euler results - openai/NavierStokesAndEuler

A Severe Misalignment of AI in Mathematics

I am proud to be among the list of 25 initial signatories — all Fields Medallists — to the declaration below, which grew out of discussions between ourselves over the last week. We have…

Thomas Wolf on Twitter / X

wtf is this way to handle mathematicians work and scientific communicationTLDR: Leven and Tristan worked over several months on one of the Millenium Prize Problems with various AIs to reach final interesting results. OpenAI apparently heard about it in the last days and… https://t.co/zNozwkFcFO pic.twitter.com/XcefJ17AQe— Thomas Wolf (@Thom_Wolf) September 8, 2026

Statements — AHM

Yesterday, on October 6th, 2026, OpenAI – which is currently defending lawsuits against accusations of illegal plagiarism, copyright infringement, and trademark dilution – released a repository of manuscripts purporting to contain solutions to a number of high-profile problems in mathematics.