I have spent most of my life searching for what lies beneath the surface of things. Behind religion. Behind science. Behind the quiet feeling that there must be more than what we see.

Show Post

Yes. This is the official statement given by the Clay institute. OpenAI proved the (C) variant. People are primarily interested in the (A) variant. But the (C) variant isn’t exactly a “loophole”; it’s an explicitly named way to get the prize.

Show Post

There is none. The Millennium Prize is offered by the Clay Institute. Whatever they say the problems are, that’s what the problems are. There is a sense that the wording of the problem leaves room for a solution that people feel is less interesting but that doesn’t invalidate the solution.

Show Post

the "controversial loophole" in question is that they solved the problem exactly as it is explicitly stated by the Clay Mathematics Institute

Show Post

I misspoke, I meant to say that the text of the tweet and the subhead are false. The headline is a question, neither true nor false, though its answer is straightforwardly and uncontroversially "Yes!"

Show Post