Hey, Alberto here! 👋 I publish long-form AI analysis covering culture, philosophy, and business. Paid subs get Monday how-to guides and Friday news commentary (on hold for vacation, returning soon). If you’d like to become a paid sub, here’s a button for that:
I have breaking news: OpenAI and Anthropic have released a joint statement announcing a huge discovery that will change everything.
A coalition of human researchers, augmented by a swarm of ChatGPT and Claude models, has solved one of the famous Millennium Prize Problems—Navier-Stokes—which, for those of you who never attended math class in school, basically asks whether the perfectly ordinary motion of fluids—air, water, etc.—can eventually become so complicated that the equations describing it break down or, conversely, whether they never do.
At least that would be the news if we lived in a world as ideal as the one those equations describe. Alas, humans be getting in the way.
The actual news, I’m sad to tell you, is that although there seems to have been an actual AI-enhanced mathematical breakthrough on the road toward Navier-Stokes by people at either Anthropic or OpenAI (or both), together with some external parties, the resulting corporate drama has overshadowed the scientific value: the AI labs apparently care much less about whether these equations can suddenly produce infinities in finite time from standard starting conditions than about who gets to stamp their name on the result.
In a human world, human problems.
The details of what exactly happened are unimportant to me, even if they involve threats, implicit accusations, and, apparently, stolen work (you can read one version here and another is TBD); the details of the discoveries (at least what’s public as of writing), can be found here and here. Luckily for us, drama cycles run on a weekly basis—soon we’ll have forgotten about it—whereas mathematical knowledge lives forever.
So, what matters to me besides the fact that solving a Millennium Prize Problem is a big deal, is this: when the stakes are high enough, the top AI labs immediately throw away the possibility of cooperative coordination. The reason for this is that Anthropic and OpenAI are not just industry peers or commercial adversaries but outright enemies. The employees are often friends—after all, they switch employers every two months or so—but not the executives.
Altman and Amodei are irrational in the sense that the other’s gain counts as their own loss. They’re engaged in a perpetual prisoner’s dilemma whose payoff matrix has been contaminated by hatred and so not even tit-for-tat retaliation is an option: they aim to kill.
It’s funny, in a dark way, that AI agents have evolved to embrace a sort of hive-like deference to the collective whereas the guys that build them have devolved into tribalism. We are not beating the ape allegations.
But corporate warfare over whose silicon pet is better at math is not the only thing returning to prehistoric levels. The PISA scores for math, reading, and science have been published this week: turns out, kids have been getting dumber every year for around 15 years now and the trend doesn’t seem to be plateauing. Phones were the cause when the scores were bad in 2018. COVID was the cause in 2022. Generative AI is the cause now. (There is merit to this conjecture.)
But whatever the actual reason—nothing in this universe is monocausal—the paradoxical truth is that, as new AI models break into the highest spheres of mathematics, new humans are falling out of the lowest ones. So not only is AI preparing the ground to take over (from us) by conquering new territory, but we are willingly retreating.
Interestingly, England isn't seeing the same drop in PISA scores, apparently. I wonder why it's an anomaly?
Facts Only
* OpenAI and Anthropic released a joint statement about a discovery.
* A coalition of human researchers augmented by ChatGPT and Claude models solved one of the Millennium Prize Problems: Navier-Stokes.
* The mathematical problem concerns whether fluid motion can lead to breakdowns in governing equations.
* Corporate drama overshadowed the scientific value of the breakthrough.
* AI labs appear focused on naming rights rather than solving fundamental physics problems.
* Anthropic and OpenAI are positioned as adversaries in their relationship, contrasting with other peer or commercial relationships.
* PISA scores for math, reading, and science have declined over approximately fifteen years.
* Generative AI is suggested as a cause for the current decline in PISA scores.
* England is noted as having an anomaly regarding PISA score drops.
Executive Summary
A recent joint statement from OpenAI and Anthropic announced an AI-enhanced mathematical breakthrough regarding the Navier-Stokes equations, achieved by a coalition of human researchers augmented by ChatGPT and Claude models. The core scientific question addressed is whether fluid motion can lead to breakdowns in their governing equations or if they remain consistent. While this represents a significant mathematical development, the focus shifted toward corporate outcomes rather than pure scientific investigation. The reporting suggests that the corporate drama surrounding the discovery has overshadowed the mathematical value of the finding. Furthermore, the dynamic between AI labs appears competitive, characterized by an environment where rival entities are seen as enemies rather than peers, which complicates cooperative action.
The narrative also links this corporate friction to broader societal trends regarding mathematics education, noting recent PISA scores indicate a declining trend in student performance across math, reading, and science over the last fifteen years, with generative AI being identified as a contemporary factor contributing to this decline. This implies a feedback loop where advancements in AI intersect with educational outcomes, leading to a retreat from cooperative scientific endeavors.
Full Take
The narrative juxtaposes a specific scientific achievement with a meta-analysis of institutional behavior, suggesting that high-stakes corporate competition actively undermines collective problem-solving. The core tension lies in the shift from potential cooperative coordination among AI developers to entrenched tribalism driven by rivalry, which the author frames through the lens of an irrational prisoner's dilemma among executives. This pattern suggests that when stakes are high, antagonistic relationships override shared scientific goals.
Simultaneously, the analysis pivots to a broader pattern concerning human intellectual decline, where advancements in AI are correlated with declining educational metrics. The simultaneous rise of autonomous agents embracing collective deference while human builders devolve into tribalism presents a paradox regarding the direction of evolution—one path is toward collective capacity expansion via augmented intelligence, the other involves conscious retreat from high-stakes engagement. This suggests that cognitive sovereignty may be eroding not just through external technological shifts but also through internal, self-imposed fractures within expert communities.
The implication for human agency is the risk of recursive degradation: as AI conquers mathematical territory, human capacity for collaborative rigor recedes. The question becomes whether this competitive fragmentation—where agents defer to a hive while humans fracture—is a feature or an outcome of a system optimized for individual, zero-sum gains rather than shared epistemic progress. What mechanisms exist to recalibrate the incentive structure away from adversarial positioning toward necessary collective risk management in scientific advancement?
Sentinel — Human
The text exhibits strong human stylistic fingerprints, characterized by a passionate, idiosyncratic voice weaving complex philosophical observations with current events, despite mentioning verifiable data points.