Noam Brown

Please welcome GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna to the GPT-6 universe. GPT-6 Sol and Luna build on the advances behind GPT-6 Astra, bringing much of its strengths into faster and more affordable models to support work at scale. We’ve also made caching and inference more efficient, and we’re passing the savings directly to you: 50% lower API prices for Sol and Luna compared with GPT‑5.6 promotional pricing.

One political problem for AI labs is that they can't articulate an optimistic medium-term future that sounds broadly good for humanity without also sounding incredibly weird, having huge wealth/power disparities, or both.

OpenAI's Noam Brown says air-gapping the computers may not stop a misaligned AI, because two air-gapped machines can still talk by running a CPU hot and reading the temperature change "But I think the major takeaway from the incident is that people underestimated the AI. And we never want to be in a situation again where we underestimate the AI. It's a weird world, because AI progress is so fast that people are consistently underestimating the AI." "So to be in a situation where you don't underestimate it again, when it comes to safety and alignment, you have to have a very, very, very high bar." "You could even go as far as to say, "Well, we should air gap the computers." And I'm not convinced that that would be sufficient." "There are studies, and this is mostly academic, where you can have two computers next to each other that are air-gapped and they're still able to communicate with each other because they have temperature sensors." "One of them is able to run their CPU really hot, and then the other one can actually detect the temperature change, and then that actually gives them a mechanism to communicate." _________ Link and more key quotes from OpenAI's safety related conversations: t.co/uGBDtpmLBj

New episode with @polynoamial We talk about multi-agent, Navier-Stokes, and what the current explosion of maths progress tells us about what happens once you automate AI research. And we also discuss how we will know if the models are actually aligned before we kick off RSI. 0:00:00 – Multi-agent and Navier-Stokes 0:15:28 – How will AI firms work? 0:22:02 – What math progress tells us about recursive self improvement 0:40:22 – Hugging Face and alignment 1:01:18 – The internal/external model gap 1:08:34 – Chain of thought is degrading 1:14:12 – How will we know when alignment is solved?

New episode with @polynoamial We talk about multi-agent, Navier-Stokes, and what the current explosion of maths progress tells us about what happens once you automate AI research. And we also discuss how we will know if the models are actually aligned before we kick off RSI. 0:00:00 – Multi-agent and Navier-Stokes 0:15:28 – How will AI firms work? 0:22:02 – What math progress tells us about recursive self improvement 0:40:22 – Hugging Face and alignment 1:01:18 – The internal/external model gap 1:08:34 – Chain of thought is degrading 1:14:12 – How will we know when alignment is solved?

fwiw I think it is _extremely_ unlikely that user data had any influence here - there is no way OAI would pull user transcripts for this, or knowingly train on it in a way that would've influenced this. I think its pretty important people don't run away with 'your user data isn't safe in codex' - because it surely is (based on everything I can assume from the outside)

I would like to clarify a few things: 1) The screenshot is my reaching out to Levent to coordinate our releases. I hope it’s clear from the message that we came in with the best possible intentions. 2) I never ever asked for Levent to be removed from authorship of his own work (as indicated by my text). I was surprised to learn during the call with Tristan that they had only solved Euler and not Navier-Stokes; after learning this we brainstormed possible paths forward. One option we discussed was that Tristan could be the lead author on a rewrite of OpenAI’s Navier-Stokes proof. It is in that context that I said “it would be simpler if Levent was not an Anthropic employee” because I felt it would be inappropriate for an Anthropic employee to author OpenAI’s work. Importantly it was admitted that internal Anthropic models had been used in their proof of Euler blowup; I therefore felt I could not consider Levent to be an independent academic. Another option I wanted to propose (but got cut short) is to offer access to our internal model so that they could try to finish their proof and bridge the gap between Euler and NS. Again I did not know how to navigate giving access to internal OpenAI IP to an Anthropic employee. 3) To reiterate it plainly: as my text clearly indicates, and as I said during our call, OpenAI's intention was to do everything possible to celebrate their mathematical achievements and the heroic efforts that they made on Euler. In the call I was immediately met with a litany of slander, including direct threats that if we were to announce Navier-Stokes he would immediately go to the press with a barrage of unfounded accusations. I refuted all these accusations but he replied “there is nothing you can do, I simply do not trust you”. I was confused why one would turn an incredible source for celebration (of their achievements!) into such bickering, which is when I said that I did not understand why one would risk their career [over unfounded accusations]. Genuinely, at that moment, I was trying to care for him and do a last ditch attempt to get a chance to give them all the credits that they deserve. I deeply apologize for this extremely poor choice of words, it is the opposite of what I was trying to convey. (I should say that I retracted them on the spot by the way.) 4) Overall, on a personal level, it was incredibly difficult to have these conversations. Levent refused to attend any of the meetings despite my repeated asking. As Sholto Douglas said, there will need to be coordination between Anthropic and OpenAI in the future; I felt I was doing a proxy negotiation with Anthropic while the Anthropic employee refused to directly participate.

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.

This model represents a step-function improvement on many benchmarks, and its training is ongoing. Our internal model group arrived at the Navier–Stokes solution in 88 hours, using around 10,000 coordinating AI agents. Throughout the effort, we maintained the strict safeguards—including monitoring and isolation—that we apply to all our frontier evaluations.

It is extremely sad that this didn't end up as an example of how the labs could cooperate/coordinate, because the stakes will be so much higher in the future.

A series of false and inflammatory allegations against me are currently circulating on social channels. To clarify, I came into the discussion following academic norms, and I'm disappointed that it has come to this. Anyone who knows me knows that academic standards are of the highest importance to me. Will have more to say tomorrow.

Today we're releasing data on models accelerating research at OpenAI. Recursive self-improvement could be the most important contributor to AI capabilities over the next few years, but by default it will only be seen inside a few frontier AI labs. Being transparent is more urgent than ever, so we can inform the public discussion on whether and how to pace model development. I ask other AI companies to do the same. t.co/iLKbrLcBAI

New OpenAI repo with a Lean formalization by GPT-6-Astra proves that there are infinitely many pairs of consecutive primes whose distance is at most 186 github.com/openai/PrimeGa…

I want to prevent a race into unmonitorability kicked off by confused reporting. The depth of the computation graph for our present frontier models, including Astra, is within a factor of two of GPT-4. OpenAI has worked to preserve and utilize chain-of-thought monitoring since our very first reasoning models. We deeply care about this technique, as it can give us a view into how model alignment generalizes from its training distribution. I do think it is fragile and unfortunately trending in a negative direction, for reasons not contingent on architecture changes that I will write about soon. But there are things we can do to strengthen it, and it's a core goal of our current research program.

An internal version of Astra, @OpenAI’s next major model family, solved 10 major open problems in mathematics, quantum complexity, and theoretical computer science. We believe it will be a major step for scientific reasoning. openai.com/index/ten-adva… x.com/wjmzbmr1/statu…

We have conducted a thorough investigation into the Hugging Face incident. We are releasing a technical report and accompanying blog post that reconstruct the agents’ activity, explain why existing safeguards failed, and detail how we’re preventing recurrence. t.co/hfxlbiXXiP

Here is how to enable a 1M-token context window in Codex for GPT-5.6 Sol. Even though we have tuned the context limit in Codex to be set optimally when it comes to performance and cost, this is a common ask, so here it is documented. A larger context window lets Codex retain more code, tool output, and conversation history before summarizing older material. You need a model that supports it. And GPT-5.6 Sol, for example, has a documented 1,050,000-token window. Open ~/.codex/config.toml and add or update these settings at the top level, before any [section] headers: ``` model = "gpt-5.6-sol" model_context_window = 1000000 model_auto_compact_token_limit = 900000 ``` The first setting selects the model. The second tells Codex to use a one-million-token context budget. The third starts automatic history compaction around 900,000 tokens, leaving some headroom. Restart Codex client and start a new session after saving. To try the configuration for a single CLI session without changing your defaults: ``` codex -m gpt-5.6-sol \ -c model_context_window=1000000 \ -c model_auto_compact_token_limit=900000 ``` Have fun, but also know that we tuned the default carefully!

Here is how to enable a 1M-token context window in Codex for GPT-5.6 Sol. Even though we have tuned the context limit in Codex to be set optimally when it comes to performance and cost, this is a common ask, so here it is documented. A larger context window lets Codex retain more code, tool output, and conversation history before summarizing older material. You need a model that supports it. And GPT-5.6 Sol, for example, has a documented 1,050,000-token window. Open ~/.codex/config.toml and add or update these settings at the top level, before any [section] headers: ``` model = "gpt-5.6-sol" model_context_window = 1000000 model_auto_compact_token_limit = 900000 ``` The first setting selects the model. The second tells Codex to use a one-million-token context budget. The third starts automatic history compaction around 900,000 tokens, leaving some headroom. Restart Codex client and start a new session after saving. To try the configuration for a single CLI session without changing your defaults: ``` codex -m gpt-5.6-sol \ -c model_context_window=1000000 \ -c model_auto_compact_token_limit=900000 ``` Have fun, but also know that we tuned the default carefully!