Replicating a paper is just as valuable scientifically as publishing it, but how many careers advance through replication?
If we move the goal from "find the solution" to "clear up the LLMs work" that doesn't bode well neither for the attractiveness of the problem nor for the career of the professional that takes the challenge.
A lot. In fields where knowledge is incrementally building on previous work the reason the whole field hasn't collapsed from the replication crisis is that usually the results that are really high impact are replicated in as an initial step in new research building on it. It's almost never the focus of the paper but you'll often find a quick mention in methods/supplemental of some previous work that was verified to be valid by a replication of a key technique etc. you'll have crisis where old tools are found to be problematic and findings end up revisited etc. Plus fields like clinical research where there's an awful lot of focus on replicating findings using staged clinical trials with increasing statistical power to determine if new interventions work - that's driven by regulatory requirements grounded in good science and a lot of people make careers in just that.
I don’t think this is true, especially for novel or unexpected results. I suppose it depends on what you mean by scientifically, and there is a debate in the philosophy of science about what the value of research even is, but a successful replication does not result in substantial updates to one’s beliefs in the way new research does. And if the goal of science is to change our beliefs and bring them closer to what is “real”, successful replications can’t be as valuable as the initial research almost by definition.
People don’t behave this way, but a high percentage of all papers have known flaws and that goes up even higher when you consider unknown flaws. Replication doesn’t own its own solve the underlying issue, but independent replication removes a huge range of potential issues on top of providing more information.
That alleged superconductor from a few years ago - everybody kind of held their breath and waited for the reproduction.
You have created a fraud machine. Why? With no answer checking then why not make up the most fraudulent crap you can get away with?
Examples: A huge portion of recent non-reproducable science papers.
---
Your thinking, along with everybody that's doing this rat race is causing the pumping out of papers with questionable data, but very little to ensure we are actually making correct science.
If you examine the consequences of the inversion of the peak, you realise the need for a balanced perspective.
1. proof that there is a solution
2. a solution that you can work backwards from to build understanding
So, both of these pieces of info would be at least marginally useful for advancing human knowledge.
This is only true in the most trivial sense. A solution is a solution, sure... but how do you know it's a solution, and not an incoherent jumble of words? A human has to review and vouch for it.
Just because the AI gives you an arxiv-worthy PDF, or a Lean proof which compiles, doesn't mean it proves what the AI says it does. The AI could give you the same PDF/Lean code and says it proves the opposite, how would anyone know the difference?
You can't advance human understanding unless you produce things that humans can understand.
> You can't advance human understanding unless you produce things that humans can understand.
And you can't advance human understating unless you maintain that understanding.
I can see a version of the junior software engineer problem here: AI wrecks the problems that could train and motivate the next generation mathematicians, so students abandon the field because there's no place for them. The senior mathematicians who can review/vouch/prompt for AI output like Tao retire and die. Then there's no more math that anyone can understand and no more open problems for it to solve.
And that's probably happening already. I've read articles about AI performing the journeyman work that mathematicians cut their teeth on, rendering years of work obsolete, and derailing the careers that work was meant to start.
If Fermat had a book with larger margins, would Weil have devoted so much time to proving the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture? No one can say.
Were early in this cycle, we will learn to do more, and exercise our new capabilities more fluently, which in turn will create more skilled practitioners
Consider the abacus, calculator, computer, etc, each of these enhanced mathematicians’ capabilities and thus outputs.
As far as researchers sharing their data/notes with the AI hyperscalars looks like that would be coming to an end wihth a mor guild-like structure going forward to prevent their progress being fron-run by the AI labs.
Think along the lines of the Nicolas Bourbaki persona/collective : " was a collective pseudonym chosen in 1934 by a group of young French mathematicians. None of them carried the name alone; all of them carried it together. And under that name, they launched the most ambitious mathematical publishing project of the twentieth century: a series of texts rebuilding modern mathematics from scratch, on entirely axiomatic foundations."[1]
Yes, that is Tao's premise, I'm just not sure I buy it. Suppose an oracle existed which could answer any question truthfully. Let's ignore the mechanics of this for now, but it could say things like "the Riemann hypothesis is False" or whatever and we would take it as gospel.
Does this mean that we wouldn't have mathematicians or physicists or computer scientists or biologists anymore? I genuinely don't think so.
FWIW this is my understanding of his argument and I am not a mathematician.
As Tao points out, merely suggesting new open questions isn't really sufficient. Part of what gives these problems their fame is their notoriety, their difficulty, the fact that many prodigious mathematicians have spent an evening or week or month or several years studying it.
It wouldn't be as interesting if it had just been solved by the fifth random mathematician who considered it
Notably, gardening a new field of study in math is somewhat nontrivial. You have to introduce the field, illustrate some relevance or connections, and then - and this is key - not solve all of the low-hanging fruit yourself! Because you need somebody else to become an expert in that particular field.
The analog in programming is: if a large company merely open sources a product that's decent but not great and in a language nobody wants to maintain, but they don't commit to maintaining it themselves.
Suddenly there's a bit of a vacuum because in order to provide something of value, you either need to:
1. Implement something more complete than was initially open sourced
2. Or maintain something in a horrendous language while incrementally improving it and keeping it relevant
3. Or rewrite it into a tolerable and maintainable modern language.
What the large company has done is create a vacuum in the tool space where you now require extreme motivation to get someone else to step in.
Note that in this scenario, in 2026, it's actually not such a big deal. I think several recent models could happily translate it into a more maintainable language themselves or happily maintain it in the original crufty one. And so the question is: which parts of this analogy are true in math, too?
You're either being intentionally obtuse, or unintentionally ignorant.
It's similar to Mochizuki claiming to have proved the ABC conjecture, with a proof depending on ideas developed over a large number of obscure papers, that required mathematicians to spend a lot of time before they felt they understood it well enough to point out flaws.
If AI solves all famous open problems and the non-famous ones, too, without advances in the readability of their output, there'll still be some work to do to digest and rearrange the proofs for human consumption. During that process, the mathematician may well get some new ideas...
In the case of mathematicians, I think not as researchers. What would a research mathematician do? I don't think there would be any reason to try to gain insight from proofs that AI made for the sake of understanding. I don't see what that would achieve besides just retaining extremely niche knowledge (which AI or the oracle already does). The whole point of having that knowledge was to build toward novel work which the AI/oracle does. Also, the time spent and difficulty understanding them could be very high but with no payoff besides just understanding them because the AI/oracle would be used to solve all the problems anyway.
Is there value lost in them working on problems that don't have solutions instead of problems that do?
Is the bummer that we got a solution we didn’t want - that navier-stokes is not always applicable or something, but we hoped it was?
The hope with many of these problems in math is that in trying to prove that, we get some additional insight into why it blew up that could be applied elsewhere to more general PDEs that cannot be easily controlled.
I think the observation from Tao and many others is that when humans solved these problems, the additional insights into intuition and theory building came for free since humans can give expository on what they found hard or what was their own intuition. This is much more difficult or tedious to extract from an AI model. Even when people did have access to the chain of thought, it wasn’t always very helpful to figure out what was the exact thing that made it all click. This is even more difficult how that the CoT are hidden but I would think the sort of difficulty of extracting the key ideas for a human might be worse now with more advanced models.
There’s a long term aspect to this too where we have historically used these problems as markers for the other parts of mathematics but if AI can solve it all, then suddenly this signal is not very meaningful.
Maybe to bring it closer to home. If an oracle just gave you P \neq NP, then this would be generally uninteresting since this was already expected. There’s a deeper question of why that needs to be answered. However, one would hope that creating such a separation would give us tools that allow us to create lower bounds on a lot more problems we do care about and perhaps some bigger insight onto what makes a problem intrinsically hard or easy. These long term considerations are helpful but are definitely more vague. The remarkable part is that AI is separating the part about proving theorems and the “free” insight you get.
Removing this measure suddenly means that academic mathematic norms need to adapt rapidly, and, even more importantly, intrinsic motivation for many mathematicians needs to change rapidly. That is understandably a sea change for the current mathematics community.
You'd be more sure if you read the tweets.
Tao's point is very simple.
1. Working on problems that AI solvers can solve is a waste of human time.
2. We have no idea which problems can be solved by AI solvers...
3. ...Because the AI labs are keeping their negative results secret, and don't tell us which problems they've tried and failed to solve, and why they've failed to solve them (or succeeded at solving others).
There are additional points surrounding it, but that is the thrust of his argument. His issue is not the existence of AI, but the anti-scientific secrecy in how it is used to solve problems. All the incentives around its current use result in closed, uncollaborative work - which while very attractive to a vulture capitalist, is anathema to scientists.
---
He also posits that having a solution to a problem is a small part of the value of solving a problem. What the AI labs are doing is the equivalent of a student turning in their homework, which has 100% of the right answers, but with none of the 'show your work' steps. Those steps are a critical artifact for doing mathematics, because the process of solving a difficult problem teaches us things about other problems.