'The game is up': Aussie professor at centre of AI maths controversy speaks out

Artificial intelligence has made the race to publish mathematical breakthroughs pointless, according to the Australian professor at the centre of a bitter dispute over a claimed solution to one of the world's most difficult unsolved mathematical problems.

"I think it's pointless. Like, I think the game is up," Melbourne-born Tristan Buckmaster told the ABC.

The New York University professor also warned Australia about the centralisation of resources into the hands of a small number of privately owned foreign companies, which were now publishing solutions to maths problems that had puzzled people for decades.

"Australia needs to think about protecting our own national interests in this world where the resources are so skewed," he said.

Professor Buckmaster said AI had become a crucial tool for research, but he had grave concerns about the recklessness of the companies building it as they competed for attention and commercial advantage.

"They have zero respect for the scientific community. I mean, it's appalling, honestly," he said.

This week, leading AI company OpenAI claimed it had solved the Navier-Stokes problem, one of seven fiendishly difficult Millennium Prize problems that come with a US$1 million reward, using AI tools.

The moment of triumph for OpenAI and the artificial intelligence industry was sullied by accusations and criticism of the company's conduct by Professor Buckmaster.

He published a public statement this week accusing the AI company of trying to gazump him and his research partner Levent Alpöge, from OpenAI's rival Anthropic, after hearing they were close to solving the problem.

Professor Buckmaster also said the company offered to let write up their solution if he took his partner's name off the research.

Professor Buckmaster said he and Dr Alpöge had more research they could publish but questioned the point of racing ahead with it when AI could perform work that had previously occupied researchers for years.

He said there needed to be a discussion about how mathematics should operate in this new environment.

"What do we do about credit? What do we do about hiring? What do we do about PhDs?"

he said.

Professor Buckmaster said some mathematicians had stopped publicly sharing what they were working on to avoid tipping off AI companies about their plans.

He has called on academics and people from OpenAI, Anthropic and DeepMind to discuss ground rules for how they worked together.

He said the companies' power carried responsibilities that went beyond competing to solve problems before their rivals.

Credit controversy

Professor Buckmaster and Dr Alpöge both used tools from OpenAI and Anthropic as they pursued solutions to mathematical problems about how fluids move.

After months of work, Professor Buckmaster became convinced the technology could make substantial contributions to the field of mathematics.

He said AI was like a "whole team of PhD students that don't need to eat and don't need to sleep".

Building on the work of mathematicians Diego Córdoba and Luis Martínez-Zoroa, the pair found a solution to the Euler problem, a stepping stone to the Navier-Stokes problem.

Professor Buckmaster said he spent weeks checking and improving the "slop" proofs generated by AI.

OpenAI then claimed it had solved the Navier-Stokes problem. It said the company's researchers guided AI agents to come up with its own solution to the Euler problem and, then, Navier-Stokes.

The company said it began its effort after hearing rumours two Millennium Prize problems had been solved, later realising the rumours related to Professor Buckmaster and Dr Alpöge.

After hearing rumours that OpenAI had started to work on this, Professor Buckmaster said he contacted OpenAI to explain their work was a personal project and that the rumours had incorrectly identified the problem they had solved.

During calls between Professor Buckmaster and representatives from the company, Professor Buckmaster said OpenAI proposed he and Dr Alpöge publish their result before the company released its Navier-Stokes result.

He said another proposal would have involved him writing OpenAI's result under his name, acknowledging the company's model, but leaving out Dr Alpöge because he worked at Anthropic.

Professor Buckmaster said he refused because he believed it would be unethical to publish the research without acknowledging both the contributions of his partner.

Time to 're-evaluate what math is'

OpenAI's lead researcher Sébastien Bubeck previously told The New York Times the offers were intended to help Professor Buckmaster, including by providing computing resources or allowing him to write up OpenAI's proof.

He acknowledged expressing not wanting to publish a paper with an Anthropic employee.

Professor Buckmaster questioned whether OpenAI's research had benefited from their unpublished work, which they had been using OpenAI's Codex tool to help write up.

An OpenAI spokesperson denied that was the case.

"We can say categorically that it is impossible for Dr Buckmaster's Codex prompts over the last two months to have influenced the system in any way, including training," they told the ABC.

"In addition, since the completion of Navier-Stokes we have made substantial progress on another Millennium Prize problem. We are working through how to share these results thoughtfully."

For now, Professor Buckmaster said he wanted to finish existing work and support his PhD students and postdoctoral researchers, rather than chase another Millennium Prize.

"I think it's more important to re-evaluate what math is," he said.