Gary Marcus breaks the OpenAI Navier-Stokes claim into three separate questions
GaryMarcus · x · 2026-09-22
Gary Marcus breaks the OpenAI Navier-Stokes controversy into three questions: (1) did OpenAI solve it per the Clay Institute's criteria — yes; (2) did training rely on unpublished work — unclear; (3) did they solve what physicists actually need — no. A thermofluids professor cited in the thread says the solution is not physically reproducible and teaches nothing about turbulence, a mathematical curiosity meeting the letter but not the spirit. Economist Noah Smith notes a human doing this would have won the $1M prize, while Marcus argues Sabine's accusations of disingenuousness unfairly conflate these points.
Related event: OpenAI's Navier-Stokes claim sparks debate over math validity and hype(9 posts)→
More from Models
- Meta's Muse tops ChatGPT's early mobile launch in downloads after 12 days — rseroter · 2026-09-22
- Yuntiandeng: Codex keeps blocking me from debugging my own website with security warnings — yuntiandeng · 2026-09-22
- Using JEV as judge: LLM citations never fully check out, ~8 sources per task — pizzababa21 · 2026-09-22
- Dev disappointed by Grok 4.7: 3D and 2D builds all failed, 'needs work to match Opus 4.6' — prasenx · 2026-09-22
- Will OpenAI eat Jev's lunch? The single-token classifier hypothesis — JnBrymn · 2026-09-22
- Will OpenAI Eat Jev's Lunch? Jev Is a Fine-Tuned LLM Classifier, Analysis Argues — JnBrymn · 2026-09-22