Claim

Model ledger-default@0.1.0 ledger-strict@0.1.0 ledger-default@0.2.0 ledger-strict@0.2.0 ledger-default@0.3.0 (default) ledger-strict@0.3.0 Snapshot seq

Topics

AI · 03192ed8 Prices and inflation · 03192ed8

Assessment

Why?

Strongest counted support: Capital & Compute estimates the 130-billion-token Navier–Stokes output at nearly $6.5 million using public Astra rates. weight 1.800000 evidence

Review gaps: independence reviewed, primary source reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Supported.

Show calculation

Your view

Registered views

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

• “By at least one estimate, the inference compute for OpenAI's Navier-Stokes result cost approximately $6.5 million.” · 1 claim · 28 September 2026
• “By at least one estimate, the inference compute for OpenAI's Navier-Stokes result cost approximately $6.5 million.” · 1 claim · 20 September 2026
• “The Navier–Stokes proof was produced by roughly 10,000 OpenAI agents working for about 88 hours.” · 34 claims · 20 September 2026

Evidence for

• Wissner-Gross gives roughly $6.5 million of inference compute, by at least one estimate.

  From OpenAI Agents Hijack a German Website, Jensen Declares AGI Arrived, and OpenAI Solves Navier-Stokes Read 2026-09-20 Relevance WEAK Steps 2 Counted

  The speaker himself attributes it to 'at least one estimate' rather than a disclosure.

• The excerpt states that OpenAI reportedly used approximately $6.5 million for the result's inference compute.

  From OpenAI Agents Hijack a German Website, Jensen Declares AGI Arrived, and OpenAI Solves Navier-Stokes Read 2026-09-20 Relevance DIRECT Steps 1 Counted

• Capital & Compute estimates the 130-billion-token Navier–Stokes output at nearly $6.5 million using public Astra rates.

  From Did ChatGPT Solve Navier-Stokes? What It Cost Read 2026-09-28 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

  This is a public-list-price proxy, not OpenAI’s internal cost.

• Capital & Compute estimates 130 billion Navier-Stokes output tokens at public GPT-6 Astra rates as approximately $6.5 million.

  From Did ChatGPT Solve Navier-Stokes? What It Cost Read 2026-09-28 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

  This is a public-rate estimate, not OpenAI’s disclosed internal bill.

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

• A blogger's own arithmetic on list-price output tokens gives $6.5 million for the Navier-Stokes run.

  From The Rumour Was the Prompt Read 2026-09-20 Relevance WEAK Steps 1 Counted

  The claim's hedge "by at least one estimate" is accurate, and this is that estimate — but provenance matters: it is a blogger's own back-of-envelope multiplication on list-price output tokens, not an OpenAI figure. OpenAI's announcement gives no dollar cost at all. The nearest company-side statement is Noam Brown saying only "this result cost millions of dollars". A separate estimate attributed to Karthik Duraisamy puts it near $6M retail and ~$1M internal, so the figure should not be repeated as OpenAI's own.

• The passage reports approximately $6.5 million, but doesn't say it's inference compute or that the result was Navier–Stokes.

  From OpenAI Agents Hijack a German Website, Jensen Declares AGI Arrived, and OpenAI Solves Navier-Stokes Read 2026-09-20 Relevance DIRECT Steps 1 Counted

  Amount and hedged estimate match; cost category and result identity are absent.

Suppressed as dependent

None.

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

None. Edges are stored and displayed; v0.1 does not propagate probability across them.

Review checklist

Review checks: 2 of 4

2 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 QUALIFIER CHECK · 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

Check	Done	By
qualifiers reviewed	yes	dec2ee46
opposing search done	yes	d8f7e8ec
independence reviewed	no
primary source reviewed	no

Summary

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
1905	APPENDED
1906	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
2093	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 03192ed8 (accepted)
4134	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 03192ed8 (accepted)
6588	TASK_RESULT	by 8b5e81bf (accepted)
8218	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
9222	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
10619	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)