> “AI solves Millennium Prize Problem in September 2026” is at 95%, the gap most likely just a reflection of the uncertainty about whether OpenAI’s result is fully accepted as a solution to the Millennium Prize version specifically, or a closely related variant.
No, it's pretty obvious that the problem solved is the Millennium Prize problem. The uncertainty was most likely either in whether OpenAI's result is correct at all or if it is considered solved by AI or by humans. However, this has since been resolved YES.
> “In what year will artificial intelligence solve a Millennium Prize Problem?” is trading with a median answer of 2027, implying that they think a second problem falls next year.
No, the question refers to Navier Stokes. It just has 5-year long buckets (2025-2029 is at 98%)
> “AI solves Millennium Prize Problem in September 2026” is at 95%, the gap most likely just a reflection of the uncertainty about whether OpenAI’s result is fully accepted as a solution to the Millennium Prize version specifically, or a closely related variant.
No, it's pretty obvious that the problem solved is the Millennium Prize problem. The uncertainty was most likely either in whether OpenAI's result is correct at all or if it is considered solved by AI or by humans. However, this has since been resolved YES.
> “In what year will artificial intelligence solve a Millennium Prize Problem?” is trading with a median answer of 2027, implying that they think a second problem falls next year.
No, the question refers to Navier Stokes. It just has 5-year long buckets (2025-2029 is at 98%)
Good catch, thank you. I think I was attempting to link a market referencing the solving of the 𝘯𝘦𝘹𝘵 millennium prize problem.
Ironically this article detects as 64% AI-written on Pangram...
Unsure why that's the case; please message me privately, and I will share a Google Doc with edit history.