We’re sharing a solution to the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize Problem, one of the deepest problems at the frontier of mathematics. The proof was produced by a group of agents, using an OpenAI next-generation model significantly more capable than GPT-6 Astra. The problem concerns whether the description of smooth three-dimensional fluid motion modeled by the Navier-Stokes equations can break down. It has remained unresolved for roughly 90 years.

Unpopular opinion: Sometimes I think American citizenship is something that everyone must earn—even for those who were born here. If you can’t handle grades in college I really don’t want you voting in our elections.

All I want to be able to say is that I've poured my heart and soul into those I love.

I wrote about why we believe the future is for everyone. More coming about a positive vision for a world with superintelligence soon.

557 days ago, Arsenal-1 didn't exist. Today, the first YFQ-44A built in Ohio rolled off the production line.

“AI will never be able to replace art.” *artcels in shambles*

Calm before the storm.

what does techno optimism look like to you? what really is the aesthetic of acceleration? show me your idea of the future

Monogamy built a mythology: the one, the rival, betrayal as catastrophe, love as fate. All of it in Morgan Freeman voice. That mythology produced most of the great romantic art we have. Polyamory has produced—what? Not art that happens to include multiple lovers, not art about sexual freedom in general, and not art about love that could belong just as easily to a monogamous romance. Art whose power comes from polyamory’s own emotional situations: distributed attachment, negotiated jealousy, devotion without possession. Name the masterpiece. Here’s why there isn’t one. Polyamory takes every emotion that art runs on and turns it into a management problem. Jealousy stops being proof that your lover is irreplaceable and becomes a flaw in your character. Erotic danger becomes negotiated boundaries. “Devotion to you above all others”becomes an expense report: allocations of attention, energy, scheduling. And when no one is irreplaceable, no loss is catastrophic. Nothing catastrophic, nothing tragic. Nothing tragic, nothing mythic. The pitch is that with the right concepts— 🌈boundaries ✨ 🌈disclosure✨ 🌈compersion✨ 🌈processing✨ —the dangerous parts of love can be rationally metabolized. They can’t. Heartbreak, jealousy, obsession, grief are treated like bugs in the romantic system we could work around if only we were smart enough. But these aren’t bugs. They’re the experiences that break a person open. And the breaking is the point. There’s no growth without it. The idiot isn’t the one who gets their heart broken. The idiot is the one who refuses to ever risk it, who shrinks the world down to fit inside what they can bear to lose, and then stands there proud of the square footage. “Whatever it is Faith asks of me, I’ve redlined it from the contract. Not my tango, Shakespeare.” That’s why the art matters. If a romantic system can’t metabolize love into beauty, myth, and tragedy, that’s evidence something essential has been deleted from love itself. Polyamory may be the most ethical arrangement anyone’s invented and still be impoverished as a way of loving. So the question isn’t whether polyamory is good. Calm down. I’m sure it’s good. I’m sure nobody’s jealous and nobody’s destroyed and nobody lies awake wanting to die over somebody. Congratulations. You’ve invented a love that leaves no evidence. The question is whether it deepens the romantic imagination or bureaucratizes it. And a form of love that has never produced a masterpiece has already answered that question