Hello! I was not active until these days when I started receiving emails about the posts made here.

To be honest I don't feel certain about the resolution of this right now, as far as I know the Clay Institute has not yet accepted the proof and they may take a while before accepting it. I feel that if I closed this right now I would be basing that conclusion primarily on press coverage rather than on the mathematical community’s acceptance of the proof.

Also, there could be the debate about if they stole the work of Alpöge and Buckmaster. In my opinion even if they stole it I think that OpenAI made sufficient advancement so as to count this as solved by an AI, but I am really open to debate on that.

So yeah, those are my thoughts right now, I'll be happy to hear yours

@mods

@LuisV What is your judgement? You seem active.

@Quroe seems not active to me

@calour

@Quroe interesting

@Quroe no bets, questions, resolutions or comments in 2 years tho

@calour If you ping mods again in 48 hours, I'll give a judgment. You'll get extra speed if I'm included in the ping.

In the meantime, @LuisV has first dibs on how this is ruled.

Additionally, I have closed the market in case people want to present arguments without fearing that we are trading on how this will be interpreted instead of what actually happened.

this one is going to be messy

What means "solved by AI"?

That an AI was involved in finding a solution or that no or little work was done by humans?

@MikeAckermann That no or little work was done by humans, at least that's what I was thinking when I wrote the question

@LuisV what about AI using human sources that made progress?

Because humans have made some amount progress on all of the problems as far as I can know

@TobyBW I think that if the AI made progress and solved the problem by itself it still counts as the AI solving it, regardless of the advancement of the solution prior to the AI solution. For example if a mathematician takes all there is to know about one of the problems, and then solves it from there, I think we would still say that he solved it. That's the same way in which I see the AI solution.