Probability AI Solves a Millennium Prize Problem
Probability AI Solves a Millennium Prize Problem
Experts put a 60% chance that AI helps crack one of maths' Millennium Prize problems by 2040.
Hover to highlight a group, click to show or hide itTap a group to show or hide it
Our Analysis
How do we interpret these results
Experts estimate a 10% chance that AI will solve or substantially assist in solving a Millennium Prize Problem by 2027, up to 20% by 2030, and 60% by 2040. All categories of experts, superforecasters, and the public largely predict similarly across timescales. However, there is wide disagreement between experts: the top quartile of experts think there’s at least an even (50%) chance of AI assistance by 2030, whereas the bottom quartile of experts think there’s only a 10% chance. The disagreement by 2040 is even larger: the interquartile range for expert medians is 30%–81%, while the top decile of experts believe there’s a 95% chance and the bottom decile think there’s only a 10% chance.
Forecasts by group
Median forecasts from each group
| group | 2027 | 2030 | 2040 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experts | 10% | 20.4% | 60% |
| Superforecasters | 5.4% | 20% | 58% |
| Public | 11.2% | 27% | 50% |
Click any cell to compareTap any cell to compare
* Denotes non-overlapping bootstrapped confidence intervals between group aggregates.
Rationale analysis
The main lines of reasoning driving the spread in estimates
DeepMind/Navier-Stokes
High-forecast respondents frequently cite DeepMind CEO's January 2025 statement that, in partnership with a team of mathematicians, they're “close to solving” one of the problems (later identified as Navier-Stokes) within “a year or year and a half” (Ansede 2025). This is treated as strong, concrete evidence. Low-forecast respondents generally don't mention this or dismiss corporate pronouncements. One expert cites the Clay Institute president's June 2025 claim: “We're very far away from AI being able to say anything serious about any of those problems” (Heaven 2025).
Benchmarks
Many high-forecast respondents point to International Mathematical Olympiad gold medals (Luong and Lockhart 2025) and FrontierMath progress as evidence of rapid capability growth in mathematical reasoning that will likely continue. Low-forecast respondents tend to argue that these are fundamentally different challenges. One mathematician notes: “The Math Olympiad is targeted toward gifted high school students spending an afternoon on a problem solvable with known techniques…[whereas] Millennium Prize problems can consume entire careers without a solution.” Multiple forecasters note FrontierMath Tier 4 (which poses much harder problems than Tiers 1-3) has <10% solve rates.
The nature of Millennium problems
High-forecast respondents commonly emphasize that math is verifiable, has clear structure, and that some problems (Navier-Stokes, Birch–Swinnerton-Dyer) may be suited to AI-assisted numerical exploration or pattern recognition. Low-forecast respondents often express doubts that Millennium Problems are solvable with the current AI paradigm, emphasizing doing so requires “deep conceptual breakthroughs,” “developing new concepts and mathematical rules,” and “truly out of the box thinking.” One domain expert writes: “The current generation of AI does not seem to be able to do this sort of creative mathematical work at all. It can apply known techniques and get novel results, but these results would be very easy for top working mathematicians.”
Base rates and timelines
High-forecast respondents mostly don't engage with base rates, or they argue that AI changes the game fundamentally. By contrast, many low-forecast respondents emphasize that only one out of seven problems have been solved in the 25 years since the prize was announced, meaning some have remained unsolved for more than a century. They also highlight Millennium Prize rules: upon the publication of a solution, a minimum of two years must pass before a prize can be awarded, to allow time for adequate verification. (In the case of the one prize that was awarded, the gap between the publication of the solution and the awarding of the prize was over seven years.) This, many low-forecast respondents point out, renders the 2027/2030 dates almost impossible regardless of technical progress.
"Substantially assist" interpretation
High-forecast respondents tend toward a broad interpretation—any meaningful acceleration of human-AI hybrid research counts, whereas low-forecast respondents tend toward restrictive interpretation. One notes the resolution criteria require contribution “likely not producible without AI,” which is a higher bar.
Architecture sufficiency
Most high-forecast respondents believe incremental improvements over current LLM capabilities will be sufficient, especially when paired with specialized tools (Lean, AlphaProof) and human collaboration. Low-forecast respondents frequently argue the current LLM paradigm fundamentally cannot do this. Multiple forecasters say we need “entirely new architectures” (neurosymbolic systems were mentioned several times) or that a “pattern matching paradigm doesn't extend to the deep creativity required.”
Difficulty of achieving _superhuman_ performance
Although rarely discussed by high-forecast respondents, a few low-forecast respondents expressed doubts that this could be achieved, with one writing, “Training a model to do math at the level of human experts might be a qualitatively different ML problem from training a model to do math surpassing expert capabilities. RL training requires creating problems with reward functions...We haven't achieved that with reasoning post-training yet.”
Rationale examples
High-quality rationales from forecasters across the range
High-forecast respondents
I guess the elephant in the room is that DeepMind says they are close: The so-called Navier-Stokes Operation, underway for three years with a team of 20 people, has so far been carried out with complete discretion, although the chief of Google DeepMind, Demis Hassabis let slip in a January interview that they are ‘close to solving a Millennium Prize Problem’ without mentioning which one. ‘We’ll see that in the next year or year and a half.
Some of the problems, like the Riemann Hypothesis or the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer Conjecture, are especially well-suited to AI-supported exploration. They bear a kind of family resemblance to the Four-Color Theorem in their relationship to computer-assisted mathematics. The Four-Color Theorem was famously solved through a hybrid of human conceptual framing and extensive computer verification. As Donald MacKenzie details in his socio-history of that episode [reference below], much of the intellectual labor wasn’t in the computation itself but in formalizing the problem in a way that machines could meaningfully engage with it and in managing the institutional consequences of proof-by-machine.
My optimism that AI could achieve high level original mathematics is revised upward significantly since the Bubeck announcement about GPT-5 a few weeks ago regarding the first confirmed example of novel mathematical reasoning generated by a LLM.
Low-forecast respondents
I have domain expertise here as a mathematician. The current generation of AI does not seem to be able to do this sort of creative mathematical work at all. It can apply known techniques, and get novel results, but these results would be very easy for top working mathematicians. The kind of pattern matching paradigm we have seen so far apparently doesn’t extend at all to deep creativity required.
If the millennium problems all require new insights absent from the training data, then current LLM technology is simply not up to the task: we will need instead new AI paradigms that are better at creating non-combinatorial insights (i.e., insights that do not originate from the recombination of patterns already learned by the AI). This will take time: it is not only the time to develop these new AI techniques, but also the time for the humans now riding the wave of machine learning and LLMs to accept that it might be worth their time to look into alternative approaches (more so after extensive efforts to trivialize these approaches as a loss of time). It is the second factor which I think will be the true time bottleneck and could push the resolution of this question further in time.
Given the progress on Tier 3 FrontierMath problems, a Millennium Problem seems well away, notwithstanding bullish predictions from corporate spokespeople with vested interests.
I would put 60% as some hard limit on whether any of the conjectures can be solved at all.
I don't think there are many economic incentives to develop those kinds of systems. Millennium problems are very, very hard - much harder than most directly economically useful tasks. They require developing new mathematical theories and techniques to even approach them. As far as I know, current top AI models lack this ability, and I don't see an easy way for them to obtain such an ability (nor are there many economic incentives for building such abilities into them).