数学家 Tristan Buckmaster 公开发声，称 OpenAI 在其与 Levent Alpöge 借助 Claude 和 Codex 运行 GPT-5.6 Sol 在
数学家Tristan Buckmaster描述了在他的人工智能辅助研究信息泄露后，OpenAI如何对他施压，试图将他的合著者从论文中移除，并对他进行威胁。
Tristan Buckmaster：https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/ 和他的合著者Levent Alpöge：https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levent_Alp%C3%B6ge 使用人工智能模型在数学上最著名的未解问题之一——纳维-斯托克斯方程上取得了重大进展。它们是克雷数学千禧年问题的一部分：https://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems/，共七个基础数学问题，每个问题都有百万美元奖金。Buckmaster现在已经发表了一份公开声明：https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf，对OpenAI提出了严重指控。
这两位数学家花了数月时间使用各种人工智能模型，包括Anthropic的Claude和运行GPT-5.6 Sol的OpenAI Codex。到八月中旬，他们表示已经取得了几个突破。他们还认为自己发现了一个特定纳维-斯托克斯变体的结果，尽管尚未公开发表或正式验证。被认可的证明将是数学领域的一件重大事件，也是人工智能辅助研究的里程碑。广告
九月初，有关数学重大突破的传闻开始传播。据Buckmaster称，Alpöge得知他们的工作信息已被传递给OpenAI。9月3日，Buckmaster主动联系OpenAI的一位数学家以澄清事实，并强调这项工作完全是个人合作，没有任何机构协议。广告
OpenAI当天作出回应，询问细节，并提供计算资源。Buckmaster建议下周通话，但OpenAI却更为积极。周五，他们询问他是否可以当天通话。周日中午12:45，他们想知道他今天“任何时间”是否有空。
同一天，OpenAI的Sébastien Bubeck：https://the-decoder.com/microsoft-phi-developer-sebastian-bubeck-joins-openai/ 加入了对话。在两次电话中，Buckmaster称OpenAI告诉他，一个内部模型已经为带外力的纳维-斯托克斯方程生成了约100页的证明。广告
起初，OpenAI 说“几乎不需要人工干预”。随着对话的进行，根据 Buckmaster 的说法，情况有所不同：一个完整的团队一直在处理这个问题，较简单的问题被用作垫脚石，同时投入了巨量的计算资源。
Buckmaster 表示，提到强迫纳维-斯托克斯（forced Navier-Stokes）表明 OpenAI 正在追求与他和 Alpöge 选择的路径相同的一条非同寻常的路线，他说几乎没有其他人正在研究这条路线。他和 Alpöge 在整个项目中将所有草稿都放入了 OpenAI Codex 会话。当他问 OpenAI 的模型是否受过这些会话的训练或是否能访问这些会话时，他说被告知模型不会查阅用户数据。当他具体问到训练时，他说没有得到回答。
OpenAI 的开发者 Noam Brown 是公司模型开发方面的顶尖人才之一，他在 Astra 发布期间表示，OpenAI 一直在尝试解决千禧年难题，但还没有找到解决方案：https://the-decoder.com/openai-announces-its-next-major-model-astra-by-dropping-ten-previously-unsolved-math-solutions/。他补充说，他们并没有投入大量计算资源用于这项工作。那是在八月初。
根据 Buckmaster 的说法，OpenAI 提出了两个提案。第一个提案是，Buckmaster 和 Alpöge 发布他们的欧拉（Euler）结果，第二天 OpenAI 发布自己的结果，并宣布他们是“最接近问题的人类”。第二个提案是，由 Buckmaster 独自展示纳维-斯托克斯（Navier-Stokes）结果，并承认有内部 OpenAI 模型参与。在两种情况下，Bubeck 两次“坚持”他希望将 Alpöge 从作者名单中移除。根据 Buckmaster 的说法，原因是 Alpöge 在 Anthropic 工作，这让他“非常烦人”。
Buckmaster 拒绝了这两个提案，并表示如果 OpenAI 以提议的形式发布其结果，他将向公众公开。根据 Buckmaster 的说法，回应是：“你为什么要毁掉自己的职业生涯？”当他回答说自己是学者时，Bubeck 据称说：“如果你不希望我友好，那我就不必友好。”Buckmaster 报告说，Bubeck 后来单独给 Alpöge 发短信，说：“我不知道 Tristan 现在是否完全理智。”Alpöge 拒绝参与。
巴克马斯特明确表示，他没有指控任何人。他没有看到OpenAI的证据，也不知道他们的数据是否被使用。他分享这些事实，因为正如他所说，“否则的选择就是让一系列公告说一些我明知道是假的话。”
巴克马斯特实际上想谈的事情是完全不同的：一位与语言模型合作的数学家现在可以在一个月内完成以前需要更长时间才能完成的事情。“这是一个‘深蓝对卡斯帕罗夫’的时刻：https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_versus_Garry_Kasparov，”他写道。OpenAI尚未回应这些指控。
保持对人工智能的了解。清晰、有用，不绕弯子。
关注The Decoder获取AI新闻、背景故事和专家分析。
解码器：https://the-decoder.com/
Mathematician Tristan Buckmaster describes how OpenAI pressured him after information about his AI-assisted research leaked, tried to remove his co-author from the paper, and threatened him.
Tristan Buckmaster：https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/ and his co-author Levent Alpöge：https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levent_Alp%C3%B6ge used AI models to make major progress on one of the most famous unsolved problems in mathematics: the Navier-Stokes equations. They're part of the Clay Millennium Problems：https://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems/, a list of seven fundamental math questions, each carrying a million-dollar prize. Buckmaster has now published a public statement：https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf leveling serious allegations against OpenAI.
The two mathematicians had spent months working with various AI models, including Anthropic's Claude and OpenAI's Codex running GPT-5.6 Sol. By mid-August, they say they'd achieved several breakthroughs. They also believe they found a result for a specific Navier-Stokes variant, though it hasn't been published or formally verified yet. A recognized proof would be a massive deal for mathematics and a landmark for AI-assisted research. Ad
In early September, rumors about a major math breakthrough started circulating. According to Buckmaster, Alpöge got word that information about their work had been passed along to OpenAI. On September 3, Buckmaster proactively reached out to a mathematician at OpenAI to set the record straight, stressing that the work was a purely personal collaboration with no institutional agreements. Ad
OpenAI responded the same day, asked for details, and offered compute resources. Buckmaster suggested a call the following week, but OpenAI pushed harder. On Friday, they asked if he could talk that same day. On Sunday at 12:45 p.m., they wanted to know if he was available "at any point today."
That Sunday, OpenAI's Sébastien Bubeck：https://the-decoder.com/microsoft-phi-developer-sebastian-bubeck-joins-openai/ joined the conversation. During two phone calls, OpenAI told Buckmaster that an internal model had produced a roughly 100-page proof for the Navier-Stokes equations with forcing, according to his account. Ad
At first, OpenAI said "very little human input" was needed. As the conversation went on, a different picture emerged, according to Buckmaster: a whole team had worked on the problem, easier problems had been used as stepping stones, and massive compute was thrown at it.
Buckmaster says the mention of forced Navier-Stokes suggested that OpenAI was pursuing the same unusual route he and Alpöge had chosen, one that he says almost nobody else was working on. He and Alpöge had put all their drafts throughout the project into OpenAI Codex sessions. When he asked whether OpenAI's model had been trained on or had access to those sessions, he says he was told the model did not look up user data. When he asked specifically about training, he says he received no answer. Ad
OpenAI developer Noam Brown, one of the company's top minds in model development, said during the Astra launch that OpenAI had been attempting the Millennium Problems but hadn't found a solution：https://the-decoder.com/openai-announces-its-next-major-model-astra-by-dropping-ten-previously-unsolved-math-solutions/. He added that they hadn't put much compute toward the effort. That was in early August. Ad
OpenAI made two proposals, according to Buckmaster. In the first, Buckmaster and Alpöge post their Euler result, and OpenAI posts its own the next day, with OpenAI declaring them the "closest humans to the problem." In the second, Buckmaster alone presents the Navier-Stokes result and acknowledges an internal OpenAI model. In both scenarios, Bubeck twice "asserted" that he wanted Alpöge removed from authorship. The reason, according to Buckmaster, is that it was "so annoying" that Alpöge works at Anthropic.
Buckmaster rejected both proposals and said he'd go public if OpenAI published its result in the proposed form. The response, according to Buckmaster: "Why would you ruin your career?" When he replied that he's an academic, Bubeck allegedly said: "If you don't want me to be nice, then I don't have to be nice." Buckmaster reports that Bubeck later texted Alpöge separately, telling him: "I don't know if Tristan is being fully rational right now." Alpöge declined to engage.
Buckmaster explicitly states he isn't accusing anyone. He hasn't seen OpenAI's proof and doesn't know whether their data was used. He's sharing the facts because, as he puts it, "the alternative is to let a sequence of announcements say something I know to be false
What Buckmaster had actually wanted to talk about was something very different: that a mathematician working with a language model can now accomplish in a month what used to take much longer. "This is a Deep Blue-Kasparov moment：https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_versus_Garry_Kasparov," he writes. OpenAI has not yet responded to the allegations.
Stay in the loop on AI. Clear, useful, no fluff.
Follow The Decoder for AI news, background stories and expert analyses.
The Decoder：https://the-decoder.com/
扫码直达文章详情