moodboard: Brian Greene Waffling on about how AI, more so ChatGPT, will make mathematicians obsolete or adjust into a cowing statue of former greatness.

The breaking of the 90 year old Navier-Stokes math problem was basically a well constructed "hack" of the equation, that cost $6 million+(some say up to $15 million) to prove and to win $1 million in prize monies.  "OpenAI" used, according to reports, 100,000 bots, at 88 hours, sifting through 2.7 million messages of its own self communication, while burning through 130 billion output tokens (AI code).  To create its own mathematical bias, or loophole, by creating an "artificial force" (unnatural) to emulate fluids (the Navier-Stokes math problem, regarding the riddle of how the stability of fluids remain in gravity) spiraling into infinity.  It essentially was a costly (carbon footprint?) marketing ploy, to "brute force" the solution, which could be, at the end of the day, a type of AI misdirection in trying to find an answer.   And researchers wanting to decipher the detailed coding on how it came to this solution, will need to decipher over 2 million coded messages in its language "Lean", which may take years to understand.   

I think some of the maths/science community have overreacted and jumped to a conclusion on this "hack" as a immediate threat to maths/science, and what it means to human analysis, and study of the nature of reality. They need to slow down, take a deep breath and look at all the aftereffects of the AI brute force, with its clunky and in some ways comical outcomes.