And he also gave up his trophy, which is displayed in a random corridor of a random math museum in Paris, where visitors pass by without looking, lacking most, if not all, of the context. Only because I knew the story and the man did I recognize the object for what it was.

where is it displayed , in which museum ? As a mathematician it would be cool to visit it, but I can't find anything on google.

It's at Maison Poincaré, in a kind of theater room with a looping movie. There's some neat stuff, but it's mostly targeted at children.

There can't be that many math museums in Paris...

It's very likely that no one will claim any of the cash prizes, which is funny to me

He did it because he had principals.

OpenAI the opposite.

He had principals, while OpenAI had agents?

More likely it's because a million dollars one way or the other won't make a difference in the hole they are digging / mountain they are building.

It likely cost them more than a million in compute to solve it…

We know that it did.

Not including salaries, OpenAI spend $20MM to make $1MM. Very on-brand for a start-up.

I don’t think solving a millennium prize problem can be reduced to some DoorDash economics of “spent Y to make X.” What if it took someone their entire professional career to solve one of these problems, would it not be worth it by the same logic?

Surprisingly this is actually rather fitting in terms of time scale. When you consider it took ~10,000 agents 88 hours, or 880,000 hours to solve. That's 14.5 years in agent time of continuous 365/24/7 processing. Of course, humans solve things much more efficiently (and didn't also need the massive pre-training of every expert on the planet for 1,000,000,000 human years equivalent). But yeah, human researchers can solve a problem like this in a decade or so, while sleeping, teaching, traveling, and taking breaks, only working a few hours a day on the idea.

How many people have worked on this problem? How many have failed? How many hours total?

> But yeah, human researchers can solve a problem like this in a decade or so

None of them did, though, despite how many tried. So empirically, it seems unreasonable to say human researchers can solve ‘problems like this’.

The entire controversy was that researchers were about to release their proof which OpenAI claimed to simultaneosululy discover. The proof is the researchers in question.

Well, I guess we can say that human researchers have a certain probability of solving problems like this?

Of course, you're right. I was making social commentary / joke.

Softbank stock is up 24% in the last 5 days