Was the $1M Millennium Prize implicitly a cap on how much you can spend on a solution?
danielrock · x · 2026-09-09
Economist Joshua Gans argues that offering $1 million for a Millennium Prize Problem (like P vs NP) implicitly implies you shouldn't spend more than $1 million on the solution. Daniel Rock replies: "that's how it's economics." A short but witty exchange on the economics of prize money vs. the cost of solving.
More from AGI Musings
- Monasteries for human skills: keeping math and coding alive without AI — toptickcrypto · 2026-09-09
- Two years from o1-preview to superhuman math: RL scaling now cracks open research problems — jam3scampbell · 2026-09-09
- A plea to lab researchers: don't launch a superintelligent RL run without understanding its mind — peterwildeford · 2026-09-09
- Inside-lab take: OpenAI hasn't internalized the stakes, Anthropic understands but is racing anyway — peterwildeford · 2026-09-09
- Critics see déjà vu as Zuckerberg pitches only AI's positive future — krishnan · 2026-09-09
- Percy Liang's CS336 slide: open models are what make teaching LLMs from scratch possible — stanfordnlp · 2026-09-09