I am thinking of Mochizuki's abc conjecture: He worked in relative isolation, and dumped a huge incomprehensible proof on the community (to oversimplify a bit). That's not totally unlike what might happen if AI generates a huge, incomprehensible proof of let's say RH.
Well, what is the result? In the Mochizuki case, it was a lot of skepticism, but it also generated conferences, papers, talks in the hallway, discussions with students, and so on--a flurry of exactly that kind of community process that the declaration says is the main driver of mathematics.
Ultimately we think a fatal flaw was found in Mochizuki's proof, so it didn't lead anywhere in particular. But in our hypothetical "AI lean-verified proof of RH" situation, it would presumably generate substantially more of that community activity we saw in the Mochizuki situation. And if it's correct, that community activity would be productive (expository talks, students given problems to flesh out or generalize, etc).
Maybe mathematics just becomes a little more like other fields--relying on labs with lots of money for compute, digging through a corpus of AI-generated proofs, etc.
Lee Sedol said in an interview that "losing to AI, in a sense, meant my entire world was collapsing. ... I could no longer enjoy the game. So I retired", and I think there will be folks in the mathematical community who would feel the same when the solutions pages to hard problems are suddenly available.
But on the other hand, people learned a lot from chess engines. After decades of chess computers beating humans, there was still a renewed interest in watching Leela beat Stockfish, with many people trying to understand the strategy Leela used.
If your happiness comes from grinding on a problem and making progress, the prospect of having to dig through a corpus of AI-generated proofs might be hard to swallow. But if you're willing to do that, you will still find beautiful things that only so many people can truly appreciate.
Carlsen is bored by studying engine lines.
The popularity is boosted by YouTubers because chess is very suitable for somewhat higher class content.
I'm not sure we'd want that world for math. Positions will be cut just like archaeologist positions are cut now.
I'm not sure what the equivalent would look like in the math field, but it probably involves a lot of mathematicians losing their jobs and the quality of human-produced math decreasing overall.
The quality of the math in general would be fine, since in this scenario cpus will keep producing it. The quality of cpu-cpu chess games is quite high, beyond human understanding in many cases.
Chess is a weird example because it doesn't really have any utility beyond itself. Even pure math sometimes ends up having use in the strangest places. Although if no one understands the frontier math (because no one is getting paid to), I'm not sure it even matters what the quality of the cpu math is?
It's a bit like a tree falling in a forest. If an LLM proves a theorem but no one understands it, did it make a sound?
Presumably AI will be connect the dots to the applications. As the declaration says, this isn't just about math. Human understanding is losing economic value. You can understand stuff on your own time, I guess.
The standard justification for pure math to holders of purse-strings is something like "it might lead to a useful application down the road, like crypto, who knows". That looks pretty inefficient now. We have to entertain the possibility that AI can develop the math needed for any application we put to it. Eg if number theory didn't exist, we could have asked AI for a way to transit messages securely and it would maybe come up with fermats little theorem as part of its solution or maybe come up with an approach we can't conceive of right now seeing as most of us are constrained to available number theory. Like how in the last year when I give an LLM a programming project I see it doesnt even bother with of the many software libraries I and others have written and just codes up the calls it needs on the fly or finds some other ad hoc solution.
There's two points about this I am assuming 1) Mathematics actually has a significant subjectivity to it and is community oriented and not just climbing a never ending list of theorems that exists in the universe 2) A lot of mathematical research work is inside of a subfield and isn't directly motivated by applications. Sometimes it is but e.g. people don't work on obscure theorems about elliptic curves because of a dire need for that but more because the community found it interesting.
But in future most proofs will be for consumption by other AI models in the pursuit of yet other proofs.
It's kind of surprising so many mathematicians act surprised by this given this was clearly where automated proof assistants would lead. I guess they assumed they'd always be the ones guiding them.
What is the purpose of that?
Its like art being produced for AI to consume. What is gained from that?
And at some point AI will start suggesting - or doing - physical experiments.
But if AI is to recursively self improve understanding and evolving its own foundations, which are clearly mathematical, is essential. There is no need for humans to grasp what is going on in that loop.
Yes.
Friends and I often work on Putnam problems and this series:
The (Almost) Impossible Integrals, Sums, and Series by Cornel Ioan Vălean
Does your "one" only contain humans or does it also contain other AI systems. AI math is not a single monolithic thing, but a distributed one. I see value in sharing proofs even among just AI.
If your goals are understanding the game, self improvement, building thinking skills-- this is the best chess has ever been. It's only if your goal is to beat every opponent you can find that chess is in a bad place.
Even if you don't blunder anything, you'll still find yourself in a worse position without any clue as of what went wrong and why.
Whereas when playing humans, they can usually explain their approach and when they noticed errors in your play.
It's the same for Magnus Carlsen. Even with Queen odds, Stockfish is literally unbeatable for the best players in the world. It's just too strong at evaluating all kinds of random tangent moves (and ensuing positional advantage) which no human player can possibly pay attention due to the time required.
Stockfish vs any human is like Carlsen vs other players by about 3-5 orders of magnitude[0]. It's that stark.
[0] A wild pun appears.
EDIT: To avoid having to respond to each responder, fair comments about Queen odds. Maybe I was thinking Rook odds? Also, I kinda lumped Stockfish in with all the other engines, but I realize there are other engines with different properties ofc.
Leela odds networks, on the other hand, are an entirely different beast. I cannot beat Leela queen odds, much less rook or minor piece odds, and even GMs struggle against Leela knight odds.
Without odds though, yeah, Stockfish is just incomprehensibly strong by human standards. All top chess engines are, but Stockfish moreso.
But sometimes, these GMs can flag it, which counts as a win (especially when it's proxied by a cheater). Sometimes they can also explain the idea that cost them the game, so they've learned something maybe.
Whereas us scrubs literally cannot do anything at all for reasons completely beyond our understanding.
Computer moves are typically much more concrete than human moves: a human will play based on pattern matching ("intuition") and can only make explicit calculation of a small fraction of possibilities, after which decisions are guided by guesswork. The computers are unbeatable in practice because they can calculate concretely in seconds what might take an expert human long intensive study to notice, and they don't make the same kinds of oversights humans can make.
But if you stop and explore a particular position for an extended time, and if you have an intermediate level of chess skill, you too can probably often (usually?) figure out why it's doing something. Sometimes understanding the computer's reasons takes searching multiple branches of a tree several unlikely looking moves deep, but the collection of threats the computer was preemptively thwarting, traps it was setting, etc. are comprehensible to humans with enough effort, especially in games between the computer and a human.
The frustrating thing about playing against the computer is that it notices and thwarts every plan you might come up with, before you make up the plan yourself, and it doesn't make (human-apparent) mistakes, so the game ends up feeling hopeless. Nothing you try works on it, and if your idea is even slightly inaccurate it will be exploited.
There was a renaissance during Covid and due to 'The Queen's Gambit' where it gained much more mainstream popularity, but... Chess AI was already far far (like 1000+ Elo) ahead of human players at that point.
The thing is... chess is humans playing (communicating) with humans and that's what keeps it interesting. Check out the view counts of chess AI tourneys vs. human tourneys.
There is a real, undeniable possibility of AI becoming better at mathematics in the same way that it became better at chess and Go, and in such a scenario, one may expect the community's response to be comparable.
Tech companies are as much the topic of this post as AI, I think that's the immediacy.
I’ve watched quite a lot of YouTube videos where two machines compete, so you may not be completely right here
Top chess engine championship is pretty fun to watch.
Stockfish does not steal research or scoop researchers.
The concentration of computing resources and capital should be examined by the math community.
It would be more like Lem's novel where it completely disappears from the human horizon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem_XIV
Perhaps indeed a better understanding of what intelligence really is would allow this sort of Uplift (as in Brin's books).
In the second case all human-level maths would be solved and what lies beyond would be always out of our scope.
This also sounds like a vector for trolling the community with complex putative proofs hiding a known flaw.
Say that AI gives you a Lean proof and says it proves Theorem X. It could just as easily give you the same proof but claim that it proves (not X). How would you know the difference?
Nothing can really be considered proven unless a human expert can read the Lean proof and determine that (X as defined in the Lean proof) corresponds to X. The proof (at least the statement of the theorem) must be intelligible to humans to have value.
It's possible people will just start taking AI at its word. Maybe AI says "Here is a Lean proof of X" and we all just shrug and go "Okay, X is proven." But that's not how it works right now for human mathematicians. Why would we apply that standard for AI?
Edit: Yup. A bug report to Lean was disguised as a "Collatz" proof in a humorous way. Links below.
Dr. Tao said the same thing. Somehow, this letter came through. He wants to conduct Math competitions where participants who don’t have formal credentials can contribute to mathematical research through AI.
Title: Terence Tao - SAIR Competitions and the Future of Experimental Mathematics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB9YOi3lb7w
and this:
Daniel Litt - Working with LLMs to do high quality math
And embarrassingly they used him for a "coal miners should learn math" moment that just benefits the AI industry.
He has severely reversed course in the past week. Without concrete propositions it remains to be seen how much of the new resistance is for show.
AI is a tool. It speaks languages I don't (Math, Science, Code). I would love to participate in a Math competition without a hint of any formal advanced math training because my experience so far tells me I will do well.
Apparently he has since changed his mind.
He doesn't see value in scrolling through unsolved problems asking an AI to please solve them. In his view, this is a fundamental confusion about what mathematical research is for. Knocking down unsolved problems without developing the community's understanding of them is like prompting Claude to go through a Jira board, write code for all the open tickets, and then close them without merging or deploying the code.
Yet that's exactly how the field works. A new grad student is tasked with finding a suitably difficult problem from a list of unsolved problems. The sweet spot is obscure, so that fewer people are working on it, but not too obscure that no one knows about it. It works the same way in theoretical physics and theoretical Comp Sci, and I speak from insider knowledge. The rosy view of mathematicians in the media is largely a product of marketing.
(A) it furthers human knowledge
(B) it gets used in applied sciences, engineering, etc.
Thank You!
Professor Tao.
I don't like nuance here. I think progress is really measured by what humans are able to do and understand, not machines. It is significant if we find problems we struggle to solve. That tells us something. What does it take for humans to solve these problems is related.
The best analogy I can give is if you wanted to climb Mt. Everest you might ask someone for guidance. Would it be better to ask someone who has climbed Mt. Everest or someone who took a helicopter ride up near the top and then went to the peak? This is like the AI versus human gap to me. The helicopter is like using AI to generate a proof. The person who actually climbed Mt. Everest has firsthand knowledge of the experience. Same thing for a difficult proof. The struggle people have is actually valuable here. Likewise, we know people are actually capable of climbing Mt. Everest but if they had only ever rode a helicopter to the top, the knowledge of climbing it would not exist, and surely that is meaningful knowledge given the risks.
So if we rely on AI for proofs I think we lose a sense of what is difficult and why. We lose a sense of what human achievement is. Surely climbing Mt. Everest means more than taking a helicopter up? For students, why bother grinding through all the material of climbing Mt. Everest and then attempting it if the helicopter ride is how things are done now? This would have the affect of destroying knowledge.
(please do not nitpick the analogy because it's the best but perhaps a clumsy way to describe my thoughts)
> From my memory I think they said it took 88 hours to solve a Millenium Problem versus the decades of time humans have put into it.
Keep in mind those ~88 hours were spread across ~10,000 simultaneous agent instances.
So, roughly 880,000 hours of compute.
Assuming a fifty-year career, and forty-hour workweeks, a human mathematician's career is about 100,000 hours of "compute".
I suspect that with six good mathematicians spending their whole careers primarily focused on it, and working together closely, Navier-Stokes might well have fallen already.
The perverse incentives of academia mean this has never occurred.
The perverse incentives of industry mean OpenAI intentionally scooped researchers who were getting close (granted, with AI help).
I'm not trying to dismiss the achievement - if the proof turns out to be solid, it's quite impressive (though much less so if the training data included the recent human breakthrough, which seems pretty plausible).
I'm just pointing out that "88 hours" is a very misleading way of framing this.
> The perverse incentives of academia mean this has never occurred.
This. Mathematicians in their most energetic years are trying to get tenure or land a tenure-track job. They are disincentivized to go all-in on ultra high risk, high-reward problems. The potential downside is just too forbidding. It's much safer to develop a research program in a mainstream field that affords many opportunities for partial progress that can translate to a robust publication record.
Depends on if I want to go by helicopter myself.
> why bother grinding through all the material of climbing Mt. Everest and then attempting it if the helicopter ride is how things are done now?
I think you answered this yourself earlier:
> I think progress is really measured by what humans are able to do and understand
People want to make this progress. Therefore people will "grind Everest" as a mathematical community, and that is maybe not so hugely different from a lot of previous mathematical work.
There's still ample room for creativity: simplifying, generalizing, asking new questions humans are interested in, ...
Building a machine that solves Millennium problems is pretty cool too. You wouldn't know it from reading these stories, though.
I think a better comparison is: mathematics just becomes like mining bitcoins.
In reality, the value of Bitcoin is determined by humans (even if indirectly, not by planning), and I think the OP’s point may have been that maths proofs can be regarded similarly. No intrinsic value, just what humans find in it.
Why would research be closed in one direction? Even if AI or human says "Tried that, didn't work" or whatever, someone (or something I suppose) might very well retry it in the future, if nothing else to reproduce it didn't work, in theory at least.
The current wave of AI slop mathematics might end up driving the next generation of mathematicians away from the subject for the same reason that Mochizuki would have convinced me to quit if his proof had been accepted by the community. Luckily, my professors had the taste to immediately recognize that it was garbage.
Mochizuki was still one human and it required legions of other humans to unpack and untangle to confirm that it didn't lead to anywhere in particular.
AI is now capable of constructions so complex that no human or human team can unpack. And its ability to increase that complexity is growing while our human ability is stagnant.
meta-AI analysis cannot help. We (software professionals who use AI regularly) already know that if you run into a situation where a Fable/Astra-generated analysis reaches the limits of our comprehension/complexity due to their subjectivity, throwing more AI at the problem doesn't always converge.
There are many reasons to feel optimistic about AI, and ultimately its general ability to help science and mathematics.
I see no reason to feel optimistic about the future of mathematics and AI based on the current path of frontier labs, unless the misalignment Tao is writing about can be reconciled.
How can we possibly know this when we haven't even seriously started on the endeavor of actively reverse engineering these AI-generated proofs? That's a proper job for human mathematicians, because the AIs themselves are demonstrably clueless about what steps in a proof are genuinely interesting and load-bearing from a human POV. This is evidence of a limitation in AIs' capabilities, not of any kind of misaligned behavior. The fact that Tao actually uses that term in his complaint is deeply disappointing.
Algorithmic verification is a very unsatisfying answer to the problem (e.g., surely it's not just dumb luck that every single case happen to have this exact property), but that's an entirely different issue than saying that no one follows logic of the proof method itself.
Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?
It's prescient.
Could AI write programs that humans can’t understand or debug? Probably, but that’s not what Kernighan was describing.
Can you give an example of this?
It'll basically become slop fatigue if OpenAI starts dumping out proofs faster than the community can keep up, and some turn out to be wrong, never formalize it, don't stay to support it, etc.
(Well that's my hopeful, optimistic take, anyway.)
That said, that’s probably just because of the drama miring their most recent one. After 2 I don’t see why they’d bother anymore.
P/NP and the Riemann Hypothesis are part of the milllenium problems. They will 100% keep trying to crack those regardless.
Is there an established term for the idea of "DoS"? I've taken to calling it slop fatigue.
Imagine a world where these most complex mathematical problems are not accessible to a few hundred people, but a few hundred thousands people. ...Those original few hundred gifted mathematicians would have an even more prominent role, and their names and achievements would be known by orders of magnitude more people that they are now.
Based on current reward models, the frontier AI labs will burn down mathematics as an impressive display of capabilities and in doing so, will make it impossible for people that get paid to do mathematics to stay employed.
If your job is literally to publish papers, and OpenAI and Anthropic decide that making an infinite-paper-printing machine is the best thing to show how effective their tech is, then as a demo, they destroy that industry.
I'm not a fan of knocking down things that work, however I also find it hard to be against death of the gatekeeping old guard of any industry.
I think math is just gonna have to suck it up like every other industry now. Math productivity is longer out of reach of the average grad student. Like every other industry they are no longer untouchable and are gonna have to adjust to the new way of things or market forces will do what they always do which is refuse to fund ineffectiveness.
I've had to accept that tech/IT will never be the same. Just how it is. You can thrash against it all you want.
I'm afraid of the ripple effect of the agenda pushed by AI companies will have. In future and even now, they say AI has significantly progressed math and scientific research in general. There is truth to this, but the narrative has done more damage (so far) to the students, researchers, and the culture of knowledge transfer in academia. Many graduate students (I know) are having a crisis if any of their research worth it? If AI can (or will) do everything, what's the point of doing experiments and all? This will eventually deter a whole generation of curious minded students from research.
I guess, only time will whether this is for the good or bad. And how good AI models get without new data from research and experiments.
> Many graduate students (I know) are having a crisis if any of their research worth it? If AI can (or will) do everything, what's the point of doing experiments and all? This will eventually deter a whole generation of curious minded students from research.
we stumbled into a way of brute forcing intelligence with gradient descent.
Those who think it's me or the machine will fail.
Those who realize how much you can accelerate your research with the help of AI will succeed.
> Those who realize how much you can accelerate your research with the help of AI will succeed.
This is only true up until a point. If I treat a mid-sized model (say, Qwen3.8 Flash Next) like a pair programmer, then yes, it accelerates my work.
But I can already see the next stage with Fable: If I give it a couple of paragraphs of spec and $50, then I can just leave the room and go wash the dishes. I learn nothing, I participate in nothing, and I bring nothing to the process. I am no longer succeeding at all. Fable's succeeding without me.
Now, in this model generation, Fable starts getting sloppy after a few thousand lines. I can still build better at scale.
But I don't expect AI to accelerate humans or improve our productivity for long. I can already see the first signs of a future where the AI doesn't need us for anything at all.
Software has always progressed this way, lots of devs back then would work on business websites that have been 99% replaced by wordpress, squarespace and instagram.
I'm sure it's the same with research, you're going to tackle problems that would have not been worth the effort or outright impossible without AI. The old stuff that you'd work for months, yeah that's going to be a prompt away.
Yes, but, in the last week we saw an AI lab front-run[1] the research of mathematicians doing what you suggest. The lab threw something like $15M of compute at a problem and the researchers were able to spend nowhere near that. I think the authors are more concerned about that kind of asymmetry and race to publish the results.
[1] - I am not going to debate whether that was deliberate on the part of the lab or if it crept into training data, etc. I don't know and don't think it matters towards the point of the authors here.
It didn’t lead to a lot of people having a wildly successful career, it lead to a lot of people getting burnt out, exploited, underpaid and generally disillusioned.
There will be a lucky few, who have the benefit of being given the space to work alongside. The vast majority of people will (unless we change things) simply be made to take whatever the machine outputs and call it a day.
So many people who are excited about AI making them more productive are, I think, drastically overestimating how much value they are adding to that process.
It biases maths and theoretical physics towards the rich.
That one thing that was free.
If you set a wrong foot and start trusting the model outputs, you can waste years searching for nothing.
How can someone realize this? By getting proper research training, failing, and learning from mistakes. For people beginning their research, it would be really hard to make decisions to move forward.
If only though, because:
> There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life
I genuinely enjoy doing this, it's really fun to think critically about what an author wrote or how a particular approach works.
But it does make you wonder, why bother? Probably a frontier model could one shot my algorithm in a day or less. It's incredibly depressing. At least I'm not forced to use it now, but I fear I will have no choice after I join academia or industry in the future.
So I started saying that it only made sense to focus on problems whose solutions would be useful immediately. I even emailed my supervisor about it, arguing that our efforts were “pointless” in the sense that AI-related problems were much more pertinent and had to be prioritised.
My supervisor thought I was bonkers. I still have the email, though. Quoting myself from April 2015:
> By 2030-2040 we will have enough computing power to simulate a human brain neuron by neuron. Once we manage to create a human intelligence we will be one little step away from super intelligence: just set the intelligence to modify itself and see the exponential growth in action. Our human intelligence is bounded by a number of biological factors (e.g. size of a skull) and even the smart human who has ever lived will appear to be a primitive ant to a supper intelligence (machine intelligence will also have perfect motivation). There is plenty of literature on this if you are interested in discussing this further. > > What does it have to do with research in pure maths? I can say that research in pure maths which won't come handy in the next 60 years is just wasted effort. The super intelligence will be able to do maths way better than humans. I believe a lot of current efforts should go into researching of artificial intelligence (or areas to do with AI) instead rather than the pure maths. I want to be proven wrong but most mathematicians I interact with are too narrow-minded to counter me and they just laugh about even contemplating the above. Frankly I am myself so perplexed that I take the above seriously, but I do and it's hurting my motivation.
I'm quite curious what my supervisor thinks of that email now.
You must be new here.
And then to get retorts of "it's just just rich techies that want to find 'meaning' in their jobs while millions starve in the third world". Why would we expect the most wealth concentrating technology in history to lead to mass benefits for those in the 3rd world?
This is a very disrespectful way to make a point about acting with integrity.
You should consider that maybe your views on what makes something ethical or moral are not universal -- and that coming to a discussion with the assumption that your position is the only valid one is not conducive to convincing others who disagree with you.
I now realize many people have different tolerance level for this.
Just compare with the comments on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49639408
To use a metaanalogy from chess (once again), mathematicians play the opening game, and builders play the end game. AI is sort of a middleman connecting human understanding to applications.
I think there's a Technical argument to be made that openAI is a threat to the game itself. For example, could it have produced the navier-stokes counterexample without human inputs? since it seemed to have used the much gossiped research strategy "C" and "D", you can't absolutely be certain that Son of Astra (son of altman?) was magicking an unknown unknown from nothing (sorry to cue Rumsfeld). You have got to wait for the other five problems to be solved after general boycott
Subpar PR engine of the OpenAI leadership might kill the pipeline of inputs that they won't admit they still need in this dreamtime before "recursive self-improvement". You can call that emotional. Personally I would rather accuse mathematicians of "preferring local models that believe in the usefulness of unidentifiable individual contributors, and the uselessness of named generalist managers (ie the prompt writers at oAI)"
Big man tlb likes to say that science might be dead but engineering is just getting started. Navier-Stokes is the hammer of the nail in the science coffin. It kills science by killing the prestige of science. The engineers have to imagine that it's likely they will now get all their design ideas from the hypothetical future datacenters.
At the current rate of advancement that phase will last, what, all of 6 months if we're lucky?
I do see how this is a problem in terms of assigning credit, but I think the cat is already out of the bag in terms of these models being capable. Even without AI labs spending millions of dollars to solve millennium prize problems, there are plenty of other people who will use them to pick low hanging fruit. I don't think any social solution is going to make things go back to the way they were, where you could share your progress towards a famous open problem without risking someone "scooping" you within a couple of days.
I think that the most likely outcomes are either mathematics becomes more secretive, or there is a more deliberative approach to assigning credit than who was "first" to solve some problem. In the former case, this may slow down progress, and in the latter case, this could mean that credit would become more subjective, and be a continual source of controversy.
AI companies are investing these resources primarily as a marketing exercise. There is no near term commercial value to a 100 page Lean proof of blow up in an extreme special case of Navier Stokes, besides the bragging rights. As the statement says any commercial value in this stuff comes a very long time later after new insights and techniques have been digested, integrated into the mathematical canon, expressed in ways that don't take a lifetime of study to understand, etc. (things that AI is not yet capable of doing itself). The bragging rights, on the other hand, are massively valuable. There is a mystique to maths that makes "our AI solved a Millenium Prize problem" an irresistable headline for a company like OpenAI.
What the mathematicians are saying is stop pouring resources that most mathematicians can only dream of accessing into projects that are actively damaging to their field. They face a massive challenge of figuring out how maths can evolve in the face of this new technology, and this is not helping.
Last weekend I spun up a small agent swarm and pointed it at a field of math I have some affinity towards. Within four hours I had settled three conjectures, one of which is rather famous (for the field, not in general). It cost me about four hundred dollars.
I am at a loss about what to do with these results. On one hand I feel like the mathematicians working on these should know about them, but on the other I feel a bit like a barbarian who suddenly finds themselves sacking Rome.
It's also possible that the result is already known and you just weren't aware of it. It's easy for someone outside of a field, or even one steeped in it, to not be aware of certain solutions.
I actually partially disagree with this. What happened to all the excitement about Intelligence Augmentation (IA)? Now it's AI instead of IA. I think there's so much untapped potential for augmenting our intellect with the likes of https://dynamicland.org and https://folk.computer, as well as the work that's been going on in college math education, things like Lean, etc. I think the only reason human math capabilities haven't expanded that much is a failure of our imagination, not our potential.
I would recommend publishing them to Palomar (https://palomar-registry.org/) - I have no affiliation, this is an online registry of Lean-verified proofs created by Terrence Tao.
I have submitted a proof there that's also minorly important in an extremely niche field.
Anyway, I feel like it's a good place to dump AI slop lean proofs because the main point of the registry is that it verifies that: 1) your Lean challenge statement is the same as what you informally state you're trying to prove; 2) your Lean proof actually compiles.
This could be useful to future AI slop researchers who want to know if a given result has already been formalized, and they may be able to mine some lemmas from your work. Also, it's good to know for the field in general what has been proven.
I'm fairly certain you can set your publishing name to be whatever you want, so you could set it to be just the word "Anonymous", or the name of the model you used.
You asked for a painting. A robot made the painting. You looked at it and said, "well, I guess it's good. Should I put it online or something? Dunno. Hey Fred, what do you think of this?"
Meanwhile, your next door neighbor spends their entire life developing their understanding of life through art. They "understand" (maybe not in a way they can articulate) art. You go next door, you look at their painting and say, "well I guess it's good." But you also understand that your neighbor is just like you, and maybe you are a painter in another way.
I find it strange that, people can't see that, we don't need to solve hunger and poverty and work balance, and etc, by a round-about make-super-intelligent-AI. We could just solve it. It's pretty obvious how to, as well.
We can all be painters, if we put restrictions on the psychopaths.
They're valid.
The biggest problem is, IMO, drivebys uninterested in actual results, just getting a check mark, and the equivalent of dropping a 200k line PR on people and expecting them to be interested and do the work for you. These are things many on HN are familiar with and know how to do better :)
I can understand why the community is pissed. So now, lean proofs can be churned out at scale, and the community is left to decipher all of that slop into human understanding. There are bad actors with misaligned incentives coming in with drive-by proofs upending what the community holds dear which is to practice and propagate the art. I applaud them for this declaration.
To re-align incentives the following could happen. AI slop lean proofs are dumped unceremoniously into a lean dumpster, and what gets rewarded are results that could digested into human understanding - via the already followed human review process. Prizes are not given to lean proofs since anyone with sufficient compute can churn them out.
If you are trying to understand better the field, then do a good write up of the proofs so that people can learn from it.
If you want to earn the respect of people because you found interesting proofs. Then do a good write up of the proofs so thst people can learn from it.
If you want to plant flags and pollute peoples minds. Then please publish it anonimously, no one wants to correct LLM slop for you.
Probably we should build a repository of AI slop proofs that are only allowed to be publish anonimously. That way people may be more inclined to work on it because they would feel like they are cleaning your house for free.
I like my current life and don't want to get dragged into the current fracas surrounding the use of AI in math.
The problem is with people that may do it without contributing to the community.
The field I've been investigating is not large. Even if I were to take the time and care to beat the interesting results into something meaningful, I'm afraid the pace at which I'm able to produce these results would not be well received.
Like the mathematicians working on famous problems in private until they could claim full credit for something interesting wasn't also a marketing exercise for their own careers. The commercial value (or lack thereof) of a proof doesn't depend on whether it was done by a human or a machine.
OpenAI just burned millions of dollars over a weekend after hearing that someone else was close to solving the problems. Their interest was in their AI system more than the actual math problems.
Don’t you see how that’s different?
If clout was the goal I don’t think becoming a lifelong mathematics academic would be the first step
I guess that type of “clout” feels different to me.
Wanting to be validated by peers for your talents in a niche field vs. using millions to try to solve a math problem that you don’t really care about with AI to market the gigantic company you work for.
I can see how what is happening to mathematicians is similar to what is happening to coding.
I’m not sure what your broader point is? Mathematicians shouldn’t be upset? Coders should? Something else?
From your first comment it seemed like you were disagreeing with me but I’m not sure how.
That’s why I asked for clarification.
Edit: BTW I’m a web developer and designer, Not a mathematician
This is the core misunderstanding that the open letter is attempting to correct.
Developing a better understanding of the Navier-Stokes equations could have a number of implications for useful technology. They're fundamental to fluid dynamics, and turbulence in particular is something that many people feel we could work with more effectively if we better understood how and why it's generated. The Navier-Stokes smoothness problem is an interesting and long-standing benchmark for this understanding; we don't know why it should be so hard to answer, so we hoped that the process of developing a proof to the problem would produce more understanding. (We may still be able to extract this understanding after the fact, if OpenAI's proof is fully human-comprehensible.)
Simply knowing that there exists a finite-time blowup is not practically useful. We know that fluids in the real world don't produce random singularities, so the result can't really have much physical meaning. What it illustrates is that the Navier-Stokes equations fail to model physical fluids in some yet to be characterized way.
How much do you think other AI companies would offer to get access to the transcripts of the generation that led to the proof? No doubt OpenAI will include it in their training data somehow and use it to build the next generation.
There is already economic value.
The point is that these proofs are largely useless without the insights. The value of a proof is largely in the travel, not so much in the destination.
Okay, to elaborate, substantively, their point is that the people using these AI models are not doing it for the love of the game, but for marketing. And instead of them - and nobody - spending millions of dollars to solve the problem, successfully, they want every problem of their academic industry to persist because even though they never solve the problem, they synthesize and solve lots of other problems nobody asked for. And get to boost their egos?
Yeah, stop that. Actual alignment is on the humans themselves, if they want to remain relevant as academics and mathematicians, they need to learn how to replicate the proofs and the steps that alluded humans for decades and don't worry about the narcissistic elements that slow their industry down.
The NS counterxample is actually, by any market measure, a "problem nobody asked for" in the sense that its existence doesn't have any commercial relevance (beyond juicing OpenAI's IPO). So the only long-term value solving it could have is by virtue of whatever reusable theory/insights were generated along the way to the counterexample itself. The letter is absolutely right on that point.
It's not actually clear that those insights will come faster from reverse engineering this LLM proof vs. humans building theory to solve the problem themselves. So what you're saying may or may not even be an efficient way of operating. Also, it implicitly depends on mathematicians to do the hard work of creating problems and then deciphering LLM hieroglyphics for essentially free while the only immediately profitable component gets outsourced to a frontier lab. In what world is that model going to work?
Reading between the lines, it seems like maybe you have a personal grudge for some reason and simply think the technology will advance enough to where we won't need academics at all. But you should say that in the first place.
My stance is that solving the problem is aligned with humankind
the rest is just hypothesizing a way that academics fit in this world at all
I actually found this to be the case with some basic linear algebra notes I was recently doing in Lean (without using mathlib). The model could generate working proofs, but they obscure the basic ideas (actually I wonder somewhat if this is because the Lean code that's out there to train on doesn't make a huge effort to read like textbook proofs, which was my motivation in the first place). I give it a skeleton of a couple lines of `calc`, letting it fill in the reasoning for each line, and it does much better. Then ask it about making some macros to simplify "trivial" or "obvious" things, and it does even better. etc.
I suspect there's a good workflow where a big SOTA model makes an impenetrable proof (or code) and then a human works with a FIM model to simplify it (with the larger gnarly proof right there in context for FIM), but unfortunately everyone seems to only care about agents right now.
Presumably you're a human. Are you going to do that?
To me this analogy points in the complete opposite direction. Imagine somebody takes a half-completed project design you're trying to figure out, vibecodes a rough prototype of it, emails your manager to announce that the project just launched in alpha, and then dumps it back on your lap for approvals and testing and productionization. Would you say that they've added value to this process? Or did they just strip away all the hard parts of the problem so they could claim credit for the easy part?
If that person then runs around telling people that they're the real author of your project, because they generated the original POC, would you consider that an accurate assessment?
But mathematicians define their field. They're smart people. They're capable of recognizing when someone just did a vibecoded throwaway PoC and when someone has a well structured proof. Actually even before LLMs they'd publish new, clearer or more elegant proofs of old results. They can say that inscrutable proofs are exactly as valuable as they are, and that the first explanation people can actually understand carries its own prestige.
This letter includes someone like Terrance Tao who publicly expressed a lot of optimism about AI for solving novel math like with the Erdos problems. It's not sour grapes but the first steps to define those new expectations for the future.
And yet, predictably, people are accusing him of "gatekeeping" and ignoring the arguments he has made here and elsewhere about the benefits vs. harms by different ways of using AI.
I'm also not sure I understand what you're objecting to if we agree that mathematicians define their field. The source link is a declaration from 25 Fields Medallists with precisely that goal. They believe/define/declare that the type of AI-generated proofs we've seen are vibecoded throwaway PoCs; they feel that a well-structured proof must include factors such as "a proper writeup, the isolation of new methods and ideas, and citing relevant previous work of others", and the success criterion is not a true/false conclusion but rather "development and integration into the mathematical canon".
One of the points the parent makes, along with the TFA, is that academia -- or more specifically, the "mathematical community"-- is a setting primarily for creating and ingesting mathematical knowledge, and disseminating it to the next generation and to other fields. Humans absorb this material slowly, through lots of discussion and collaboration -- it is necessarily a slow process. Facilitating this is one of the important functions of academia. Your usage of academic as a slur here is a bit silly for this exact reason.
I don't claim it is perfect, and we can argue about pedagogy in elementary courses till the cows come home. That's not really material. But this is one of the only settings in which such knowledge is broadly valued for its own sake, and in which there is a semblance of incentive to help others "know" this stuff as well, be they future generations of mathematicians, science and math educators and communicators, practitioners in other fields, or genuinely curious amateurs.
Is it reasonable for any field to make such demands? If this were doctors objecting to AI becoming good at medical practice would you have the same concerns?
While any idea of OpenAI spying on people to pursue their goals is disgusting, the rest of this is par for the course, as Kasparov experienced with IBM in the 90s. Humans still play chess after all.
I doubt OpenAI will take such a combative stance and accuse these mathematicians of "demanding" things, as you do. As I said, the purpose of this is marketing and the statement simultaneously undermines the value of that marketing (showing these projects as irresponsible) and gives these companies an even better piece of marketing in its place: "our AI got so good at maths the mathematicians begged us to stop". It's entirely possible they will stop pouring millions into these projects.
The fact is these fields are supported by society because of the benefits to everyone else. Once the same results can be achieved in a cheaper and faster way that is what will be done. We should mourn this in the same way we do buggy whip manufacturers. Again people still ride horses.
Would you expect Fields medalists to cure cancer if you moved them from the math department to a medical research lab? This is precisely the fallacy that the frontier labs are counting on to inflate their valuation as their IPO approaches. They want to use headline-grabbing problems in pure maths to make their models look "smart" in the public eye. But what does "smartness" in mathematics really mean in terms of economic value? It is not at all obvious whether success in abstract mathematics should translate to successes and, more importantly, profitability, in more grounded endeavors.
Look at OpenAI's job postings (https://openai.com/careers/search/). Those roles involve far more pedestrian yet profitable duties than research mathematics. So why isn't OpenAI automating them with their vaunted models? Success in one field, no matter how "difficult", does not predict results in another field.
Maybe it's worth double checking that you know how these fields benefit everyone else? Proving the blowup of the Navier Stokes equations in 3D isn't going to make your gas cheaper or make harvesting food easier or make drones easier to protect against. Maybe consider the deeper effects at work?
If you can make breakthroughs on such areas as fluid dynamics, control theory or information theory with AI then that absolutely is a big deal with real technological implications.
It's this sort of thing that motivates people to burn down the institution you might be trying to defend.
lol, yes, this sort of thing is what many people who voted for Trump were saying, and things are going great for them.
> They prove a millenium result, but it doesn't count because they are bad people.
OpenAI has only themselves to blame for this, and they know it. They could have handled this so much better. I'd bet there's more meeting time right now going into how to unveil future math results than on meeting about the actual math research.
It's more about bypassing the culture and processes mathematicians have developed that lead to human understanding, generating new ideas, and bringing up new generations of mathematicians. (See also his article about "non-renewable mining" of good problems.)
Reducing mathematics to "let's just generate results through an isolated and automated system" is a misalignment since it bypasses those processes.
What a load of croc. This entire debate is fueled by a perceived lack of attribution. The AI learnt from researchers and did not give them a sporting chance of being first before scooping them. They were expecting some sort of fair play, instead they got a ruthless machine. Every other tangent to this debate is irrelevant, the culture, the community, the shared symbolic growth. Every mathematician I know is secretly trying to one-up their peers.
That it makes life more ends and less means.
Luddites complained that the trajectory of technology was to allow less skilled workers to mass produce goods via machines owned by factory owners, as opposed to helping skilled workers build up and use their skills while passing them on.
Now we have a lot of money and time focused on LLMs owned by a few companies, making it easier for them to monetize low skill labour(prompting versus art/research/artisanry)
Suppose that tomorrow we learn that AI just exploited a bug in Lean and the proof is, in fact, bullshit. Or suppose it is the case, but we never learn that.
Where are "ends" and where are "means" here?
Should the proof turn out to be bullshit, then that system will be revealed to be unreliable. Maybe.
Just like how they write software, then :-)
To be honest, I feel like the difficulty of reading AI proofs is due to the fact that we are on the verge of being beyond human comprehension. This is a demonstrable fact as no human has figured this out despite the problem being open for almost 100 years.
I can see where that's coming from, but I really don't think it's the case. Even with Astra, the proofs you get are just off in a way that doesn't signal superhuman comprehension. As 9question1 says, a common theme is that they dwell on insignificant steps. Another one is that they'll often be full of terminology that either doesn't exist, or has this weird quality where it looks like it is trying to make some minor insight seem much greater than it is. At first glance, that'll often make it look like it knows more than you, but when it's really just doing the same thing but in a more complicated and worse fashion, that to me isn't a signal of comprehension at all. The bizarre thing is that despite all the "stochastic parrot" style nonsense you'll get in individual proof steps, they still often combine to something valid.
In either case, what all of this means is that the working mathematician still needs to go through, and generally completely rewrite, any proof output by an LLM. Otherwise you are passing the burden of unreadability onto the reader.
It's definitely quite curious that the AI labs are able to push these results through seemingly with pure brute force. Perhaps it's largely a function of how many monkeys you have attempting various constructions on top of the known results and strategies the models have memorized.
That's not true. Alpoge and Buckmaster's related LLM-assisted blowup result (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49605915) utilized a strategy developed recently by Cordoba and Martinez-Zoroa.
It matters if a human came up with it because of everything mentioned in the article... A mathematician's solution is necessarily built on other's ideas that have been disseminated, internalized, pressure tested etc. Methodologies differ too. AI can abuse its compute resources and generate a true/false or counterexample statements, without laying the foundation that a decade of globalized research would have.
No you can't lol, they're multi million lines of Lean, which is already an obscure language to understand. It's an assault on your senses.
https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/32d9f210-8b73-45e0-91bc-82a30aef8...
I don't think "intellectual poisoning" is really the mechanism that harms the mathematics community.
The harm is if you have a community of mathematicians who are focused on expanding human understanding, then having instant access to a bunch of AI proved results muddies the water about who has contributed what. If someone could scoop any significant theorem at any time by pointing an AI at it, how do you really demonstrate that you have created new understanding? Or that your new understanding is about something important? How do you prove that the AI needed your new concepts to be able to solve it?
This goes much broader than mathematics or academia. This is the entire basis via which society distributes its wealth: based on a labour market derived valuation of ‘contribution’.
Correction: that's not how society distributes its wealth, it's how it throws some bones to the masses. I wouldn't be surprised if over half the wealth goes to people who don't sell their labor at all.
it feels like an unintended consequence of the millennium prize is that people view the [last contributor to the solution] as the only one to make progress on the problem. I've never viewed Poincaré as solved by one person and the objective of the prize was to encourage more people to make attempts and contribute towards progress.
this issue is independent, but in these circumstances perhaps interweaved, with the 'ai is taking over math' concerns
When there's a discussion about doing something against the damage of the AI industry: "whoopsy, sorry, another cat escape, nothing can be done".
When there's a concrete mention of an actual solution to avoid more cats escaping: "that won't happen, and even if it did, the damage is already done, and in fact it’s not that bad you all just have to go with the future we decided for you."
So the bag is wide open, more cats will escape, and nothing can be done about any of it. not about the ones that got out, and not about the ones still inside. Sounds more like a preemptive excuse for inaction, cosplayed as pragmatism
Markets defined entirely by law have distorted our collective understanding of what can actually be built with the knowledge our species has accumulated thus far. How will traditional shields that have protected capital accumulation in tech to survive in a world where governments now realize control of technology is a national priority? Especially as we see its impact on modern warfare, and that such conflict looks like it’s only escalating over time.
Mathematicians appear to me (as an outsider) to exist in a field without such distortions, and I think offer engineers a preview of what’s to come. I certainly have completely ceased sharing original ideas online at this point.
I can imagine mathematics of the future being more like that rather than history of discoveries with dates and names
Moreover in the past, discussion and idea sharing would happen naturally to overcome the friction of the process. But now when OpenAI is stuck on a particular part of NS for example, they can just throw more capital & tokens at the problem.
But now let chatGPT write lengthy emails unrestricted and now no one wants to read your slop anymore. That's what is being advocated against.
Physics and Biology will see major breakthroughs that WILL fundamentally alter our world. That is one key thing missing from alot of discussion here is the narrow focus on math (or parallels with software engineering). Doing well in math is key to doing well in physics and other sciences.
Baudelaire argued that photography became a haven for failed painters, the sorts of hacks that could not finish proper training. Photography, as a mechanical rendering of the world, could only record what already existed; it couldn't transform reality the way a painting could.
He also criticized the public's craze for "rushing" into it, and complained that this technical "progress" was weakening the arts.
Do you see some parallels as well?
[0] https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Curiosit%C3%A9s_esth%C3%A9tiq...
In a parallel thread omnicognate correctly pointed out that for AI companies it's a direct commercial loss to pour all this money into bruteforcing the solutions to these problems, and that a lot of times the solutions by themselves are not directly commercially valuable. They are doing it for stock price, trying to lure in private capital in preparation for IPOs.
Their models are good, but they are not the moat because Chinese models are good too, so what they are doing, in my opinion, is more harm than good. Mathematics is a science by humans for humans.
The crux of the argument perhaps. It suggests that too many people are currently studying mathematics without making much progress.
This is tiresome. People should be able to flat-out criticize AI without the implied need to justify themselves all the time or "be careful". Its almost like AI has a trillion-dollar agenda backing it, to the point that you have to add a careful "its really great! But there's this little issue..." for any criticism.
Even those who are very pro AI should have the intellectual honesty of admitting that there are very valid reasons to criticize AI.
There is no doubt that AI has changed the practice of mathematics, just as it has changed the practice of software engineering (and will soon change almost every intellectual job).
Trying to deal with change by saying, "please stop the change" is foolish, IMHO. Mathematicians need to redesign the discipline with AI in mind. But I get that it's easy for me to say that and hard to actually do.
My answer to both is the same: nothing stops mathematicians from doing both of those things, with or without the help of AI. And we all understand that it will take time to do that. But complaining about the dawn of a new era of advancements seems counterproductive.
you completely misunderstood the critics. your analogy is awful. this is much closer to the industrial revolution in the uk: it brought a lot of progress, but also extreme inequality and concentration of power.
Are we on the same page?
This is what I was alluding to:
I wrote recently about how the collection of good, fruitful open problems is now being mined in a non-renewable fashion, leading to the potential scenario of these problems becoming scarce [0]
It's what fanatics do when they want to enforce their view on the world, they have to attack anyone with a reasonable viewpoint because they can't imagine a world where someone tells them they don't like what they're doing.
As for the rest of your comment, I hope you have a great day.
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/09/11/a-severe-misalignm...
> It's not about whether the conjectures themselves are interesting or not, or whether people simply have enough time.
Tao seems to think otherwise, if I am reading him correctly:
I wrote recently about how the collection of good, fruitful open problems is now being mined in a non-renewable fashion, leading to the potential scenario of these problems becoming scarce [0]
Often these solutions are announced in a rush, leaving no time for a proper writeup, the isolation of new methods and ideas, and citing relevant previous work of others. As in all creative professions, this raises severe attribution and plagiarism questions. [1]
> It's that a bare proof made by a machine doesn't actually do much for us.
I get it, and I think the same can be said about all sorts of human endeavors.
> There is not some set of problems that, once finished, will amount to some kind of final, correct system and we can call it a day and, like, utilize it.
Sure. Although there are certainly practical applications to be found along the way. E.g. proving P=NP would be potentially very significant in the real world. I think we agree.
> "Mathematics" is the people doing it (the "mathematical community" Tao references below)
Sure. And the same can be said again about all sort of human endeavors. But I don't see how that is a reason to stop using AI in those fields, either. It doesn't subtract anything, in the same way that chess engines didn't destroy the love of the game for chess.
And just like in chess, these AIs can be used to gain a deeper understanding. Including, but not limited to, explaining to humans the proof they just came up with.
[0] https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117237320796901560
[1] https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/09/11/a-severe-misalignm...
Also, how, in your words, do you feel like the first quote justifies your point (presumably with regard to the question of "interesting" or not)? And why do you think the second one is more about time itself rather than attribution? Do these things actually contradict the letter above (or the comment on it) in your mind or not?
In general, do you disagree with something here specifically? Or is it kind of a yes/and thing? Does any of this help, in your mind, with the Baudelaire comparison you were at least at one point trying to argue for? Its a bit hard for me to see the argument here, if there is one, just with what you have written. But I am sure I am just not knowledgeable enough to grasp the argument!
Some folks are struggling to adapt to this change. Tao actually sounds like he is doing alright compared to most, even if some of his arguments seem a bit weak, as I alluded to in other comments in this thread.
Hopefully it makes some sense. And if it doesn't, at least we had a nice chat.
The historical record. That's why I am drawing some lose parallels with Badulaire. Incumbents being unhappy about a disruptive technology, lashing against the early adopters, and fearing that it signifies the end of their craft, when in reality it's just a period of change and adaptation. Without the advent of photography we would not have Impressionism nor all the movements through the 20th century. Photography forced painters to reinvent themselves, and LLMs will force mathematicians to do the same.
I thought the historical examples of photography and chess engines would be enough for people to connect the dots, but apparently not.
Realism isn't difficult, so critique shifts towards composition, narrative, context, process, and emotional impact.
Taking a clear photograph is easy with modern equipment, which means the bar for what's considered "good" is high.
Baudelaire popped up in this article two days ago.
AI is being treated and pushed as a replacement for every medium.
Photography decimated other forms of visual art, so the concern wasn't wrong. But AI threatens the entirety of human intellectual endeavors. I can make do without oil paintings in my home. I'm not sure I want to live in a future where we make do without brains.
In a way, if photography is an ersatz for painting that eventually made imaging available for the masses, then AI could become an ersatz for thinking. But it feels like I'm paraphrasing TFA.
What will happen when AI companies have spent their advertising budget on math problems and whatever else gives the maximum wow effect for the bucks? Probably customers hooked on the vain satisfaction of spending token$ to impress friends.
So what went wrong? Mathematics education. Math below grad school is all about solving stated problems. Credit is given for solving puzzles successfully. Homework is problem sets. Everybody below a very advanced level is taught math that way. Even at the higher levels, puzzles remain important. Awards in mathematics are often tied to solving puzzle-like problems. That's still the criterion for becoming Senior Wrangler at Cambridge, "the greatest intellectual achievement attainable in Britain". This despite Polya's attempt at reform a century ago. Puzzle solving gets good grades and class rank. So it's the status indicator mathematics presents to the outside world.
Then reasonably good AI comes along. AI has become rather good at solving puzzles. So people aim powerful AIs at known hard puzzles, with some success. That blows up the status indicator system. Mathematics itself is fine. It's the status symbols that have a problem.
Maybe the Fields Medalists need to hire a crisis management team to reframe what success means in mathematics. That's what they're trying to do with that letter, but they're mathematicians, not PR people, and they don't know how.
The argument here sounds similar. The fear, as I understand this statement to be saying, is that by being given the correct answer, in the form of a 100-page Lean proof, humans will be robbed of the chance to from insights about the structure of mathematics itself. I don't see any reason that humans can't continue to develop insights as they try to digest the 100-page Lean proof into something more manageable; but with more certainty and fewer false starts.
There is no equivalent in math.
A but like whenever the first sprinter hits a new world record other runners follow along.
Knowing that something is possible tends to strengthen our ability to work with it.
We will potentially see the same with math.
Well yeah... how would there be fewer??
But the point itself is silly. Few people are putting effort into Maths for the fun of it (and of those that are many derive fun from being the only one who can produce a solution). Chess differs in that it never had any point but the game its self.
I know nothing about chess yet I dare say that I'd doubt this. Surely chess enthusiasts would be interested in analyzing how a superior chess program came out victorious, no?
Mostly nobody cares about professional chess. The number of people who are actually interested in today's game and not the drama are a tiny sliver of that. This is actually great because it means we can train and evaluate both without interference from chess players, possibly even building a stable society.
This is the crux of it and goes far beyond Mathematics or Computer Science. To get a bunch of humans to do anything, you have to motivate them. Kleos and Timē; renown and stuff. These AI companies threaten to rip this away from everyone but themselves, and this recent millennium prize is the perfect example.
Solving this problem as a human would have led to tremendous Kleos; my name would be written in the annals of mathematics, lecture tours of praise were mine to be had for the rest of my days. This one victory would have earned my recognition throughout history. The greatest a mortal may hope for. Ripped away.
It would also have given me great Timē. The prize money, the professorships, the book deals. Gone.
If all hope of “renown and stuff” in the intellectual realm is now taken by the AI companies, they will remove all human motivation to pursue these endeavours.
Perhaps the glory will come from slaying these fell beasts.
But there's still play. There's still curiosity. And there's still the drive to understand something for yourself.
Yes, but think about what that implies if those are the only motivations left. Gone are the professions. Gone are the ambitious.
There is plenty of space for people to work on intellectual pleasure pursuits (as there is with art and music), but the death of all intellectual based industries is still something to avoid. Or to mourn.
This is the effect of AI on most intellectual disciplines, and it’s a real worry.
But now, LLMs can generate hundreds of books per hour. They make up 80-90% of new arrivals in many nonfiction categories on Amazon. They short-circuit the system, allowing their "authors" to extract money from the system with zero effort by crowding out human work. And it's not even the question of whether these books are good or bad (although overwhelmingly, they're terrible). It's whether it's actually accomplishing anything worthwhile, or just destroying incentives for humans to write or go into any other sort of intellectual work.
In fact, I see many professions push back. Artists, writers, now mathematicians. And I'm amazed that our profession doesn't and that we have so many people who are hooked on vibecoding. I'm still waiting for that 10x payoff. All this velocity and somehow, the landscape of the software I want to use still looks the same as it did in 2021.
Is the fear post-apocalyptic in nature ? We need some human priesthood to carry on tradition ? why ?
Let's assume in the next decade GPT-7 PRO Ultra is cheaply ubiquitous, inspectable, reproducible, transferable, reasonably un-constrained by any institutional interests.
What say the 1% ?
Just a thought.
I'd argue that this extremely extreme scenario is the only one in which it kind of makes sense to not have understanding. But let's be honest: no one knows if we'll be there (and it seems unlikely since everything reaches a plateau eventually). So, what happens if we allow ourselves to forget everything and then we don't reach the ideal scenario?
This is a litmus test for the effective altruists in AI labs: fashion or conviction? The social pressure is to slow down and let the guild keep its norms a few more years. But what's clearly best for humanity is to push forward violently and leave them in the dust. A Fields medalist's feelings are not more important than the wellbeing of the planet.
his core argument that is LLMs (and specifically LLMs owned and gated by corporations was my read), while able to solve problems, do not contribute to this practice of knowledge building. solving problems is just one piece, and the mathematics community ingests problems and new methods, iterates and thinks on them, and then produces new ideas, methods, etc. this is what he is defining as progress, and solving things like millenium problems are markers of this progress.
The hopeful note is that I do think we are entering a golden age for the curious casual/semi-pro mathematician and for niche mathematics areas that won't get the attention of the top labs. Everyone is sprinting to solve the millennium problems, but this is a very exciting time to be in a sub-sub-field where you and 4 others are keeping things alive.
Huh. Weird. This hasn't been my take of mathematicians at all. The dozens I know are quite humble and dedicated to math and the beauty one finds in it.
Of course, nobody's really comfortable with it, so this is also a forcing function for the industry to adapt and figure out new techniques to manage complexity and trust. I think the same will happen with Mathematics.
But it is also possible we will end up with three forms of Mathematics: the one we understand, the one we don't, and the one we don't understand but can prove to work. Kind of like magic -- with all the positive and negative connotations of the word.
It is pretty evident that these models will soon exceed our cognitive capabilities. Is it right to hold them back just because we can't keep up? Many of those discoveries will be so beyond us that we can't do anything with them, but that also means they can't hurt us. On the other hand, there could be many discoveries that we can parlay into practically useful applications, even if we don't understand them.
Just like LLMs.
Yes, this has gone so well
That's not true, many of these outages have been directly attributed to AI tooling.
> The rest of the world has been happily chugging along with coding agents for almost a year now and things seem to still be working just fine.
Many more services are now being attacked by AI agents that originate from all kinds of organizations including OpenAI, Anthropic, and many others. Unless you're purposefully being obtuse, I would not call that "working just fine".
It seems like a lot of the issue here is that these problems aren’t interesting in and of themselves, but they lead down interesting roads. It defeats the purpose if you solve them without getting any real understanding.
It’s akin to saying you’ve solved “pancake flipping” problems with a waffle maker, or “travelling salesman” problems with a zoom meeting.
Well, one thing is stopping them. There will be no more adoration for their genius.
If you truly do it for understanding and not the attention, carry on. AI should change nothing about your motivations.
My understanding is they are? And literally everything in this world is based around incentives. If you say “well you can continue to work on understanding, but your kids are going to starve” that’s not nothing.
We absolutely want to, of course. But you extinguish an industry and the systems of training that supply it. It's hard to know if letting it go that way is right.
I have a the cure for cancer. Simply kill the host. Does it work? Yes. Have you learned anything from it? No.
People like Grigori Perelman would baffle you, a mathematician who solved the Poincaré Conjecture, refused the monetary prize, field medal and continues to live a life of total recluse.
For most mathematicians their primary drive is chasing the unknown, not for anyone’s adoration, but to pursue their desire to see what lies in the beyond.
It was never about helping individual mathematicians demonstrate that they are individually good at math. It happened to work out that way, but it wasn't the goal.
Keep in mind employees at AI companies are publicly stating that they believe they're risking a >10% chance of human extinction. They're knowingly risking the lives of every man, woman, and child to continue the work. The lives of their own sons and daughters. A person already rationalizing that isn't going to shed a tear for the careers of mathematicians. Just a bug on the windshield.
AI companies are alienating the communities they serve. Instead of a win-win dynamic, they are keen on a win-lose proposition. You dont win trust by one-upping your customer. This is unfortunate and suggests a lack of adults in the room. It also reeks of hubris and is all good when making profits is not a concern. But watch the narrative shift when there is an AI slowdown which is inevitable.
Ironic or what. Mr Tao may be remembered as Mathematics' Canute.
Are we really going to take what they say in public seriously?
What got me interested in memes as a kid is precisely the fact that mathematics is true in a way that is wholy independent of our understanding of it.
1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ... = 2
The big objection to finiteism is that it's a lot more work. Infinity swallows many special cases. Proofs get longer without infinity, and most of the special cases are uninteresting. That's not a problem for AIs.
Someone may start up an AI and make it grind through Hilbert's program for putting mathematics on a fully consistent foundation, starting from a finiteism base. This is a huge, unrewarding job. Great for machine work.
A better example would be a limit that equals sqrt(2) which finitists would probably say cannot represent a real object because it is only defined as the end of an infinite process.
It's not necessarily clear that this statement requires infinity, if you're willing to treat "... =" as a shorthand. You might prefer something like "1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ... -> 2" if it's more clear, where "->" means something like "gets as close as you like without ever getting further away than that", but really the "=" sign is already overloaded in all sorts of subtly different ways anyway, so there's not really any trouble using it here. Almost any rigorous definition you can write down of exactly what that statement means would not rely on the use of infinity.
If you allow infinite recursion, you soon get to Godel and undecidable problems. Finite deterministic systems are decidable, because you can in principle enumerate all the states. The halting problem is decidable for deterministic systems with finite memory. It may be exponentially hard for some programs, but that's quite different from being undecidable.
(This is too long a subject to discuss here, and I haven't worked on constructive mathematics in many years. It's more practical than it was decades ago. You need power tools, which we now have.)
This is about how good taste in both research direction and in design are essential to steering AI, but we have no plan at all for instilling that taste in students or practitioners in a post-AI world.
> The issues the mathematical community faces now are similar to issues that other scientific and creative professions are facing, and indicate issues that all of humanity might face: how to make sure that, as AI changes the way work is done, we do not lose sight of what that work was meant to achieve in the first place.
Besides eroding taste and taste-building, this is about just how useful friction is as signal.
Everyone coding with AI knows it routes around difficulties like a river around a stone, which is not necessarily a good thing. It will do it tirelessly 1000 times instead of learning anything from it. AND if the AI does not fail in this, the human driver will get no signal, and never know it happened. This seems to be getting worse, not better.. my theory is that more models are cross-trained on cybersecurity stuff where the goal is success and the method doesn't matter. Fine for pen-testing, ultimately pretty bad for coherent code or math or physics.
Discrete tasks where we don't want to be bothered is a real use-case, but optimizing for it everywhere is terrible for the future of durable abstractions that we can build on and ratchet up our understanding with. Bad for the models too eventually! They can maintain a codebase with millions of special cases or juggle tons of free variables in equations, but that just encourages bad abstractions.. they have a ceiling for this too, even if it's higher than humans.
- Except the mathematicians who we'll scoop and cause existential dread among their entire field.
- Except the software developers. They'll need to become plumbers or live on UBI.
- Except the people in countries that can't afford the cost of AI tokens to keep up with the rest of the world.
Just keep picking off groups of humans for the "benefits of all humanity"... while building larger and larger disparities been the have a lots and the just have enoughs.
We're going to build humans a utopia but along the way we'll leave a trail of destruction because that's not our problem.
Would you argue it didnt benefit humanity, because taxi/bus drivers are nolonger required
If all that AI brought resulted in just taxi/bus drivers being phased out of their jobs in a thoughtful way, then that would be more manageable at the society level. But we're talking about almost all sectors of the economy.
If the magnitude of changes that OpenAI and Athropic believe will be delivered with increasingly powerful AI (and robotics) comes in a time frame that significantly worsens a large proportion of people's lives, this is a different situation. Can super powerful AI not be developed in a way that minimizes such disruption?
Remember when we all said it's a good thing when the coal mining jobs are going away and that they should all just learn to code? Maybe a little more of that energy right now.
We could imagine, as an extreme case, a technologically highly advanced society, containing many complex structures, some of them far more intricate and intelligent than anything that exists on the planet today – a society which nevertheless lacks any type of being that is conscious or whose welfare has moral significance. In a sense, this would be an uninhabited society. It would be a society of economic miracles and technological awesomeness, with nobody there to benefit. A Disneyland with no children.In almost any scenario even tangentially involving mathematics, twenty-five Fields medallists uniting to denounce something would be a veritable Tsar Bomba.
It should give you pause that here they feel like the ailing infant.
What's the point of being human if we dont do human things but entirely rely on AI?
I believe this is more or less these mathematicians' argument.
Research is fundamentally different. We are seeing the erosion of specific needs for thinking at depth. AI is the automobile for the mind. There will 100% be undesirable consequences and selective atrophy of cognitive abilities once prized. This is a loss. There's no getting the cat back in the bag at this point so long as the objective dimension of work, as in object opposed to subject, is held as the most important.
SWEs felt this same crisis late last year. Now it's the mathematicians. They won't be the last.
Philosophers I'm sure can debate this back and forth but it seems probable that some things we thought were ineffable are in fact quantifiable to a degree, and now we have the technology and the machines to bring that to the logical conclusion.
The answer may sound harsh, but we will not need human once AI reaches that threshold. Current IQ of AI is currently 130 as per Google.
[1] https://www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/Meditations-On-Moloch
I wonder if there’s a Fields Medalist group chat.
To Tao’s credit he obviously identified the problem very clearly and admits understandably "we did not have the time to have a more consultative process, as with Leiden; but we decided that the urgency of the situation was such that we needed to release a statement sooner rather than later".
Why? If someone makes an innovation that undercuts the underpinnings of some existing institution, why are they are responsible for cleaning up its failure?
Out sourcing construction jobs was great for the economy while leaving entire cities in rubbles.
But as soon as it hits the privileged class there is a call to "provide a specific replacement mechanism".
We apparently have a moral obligation to protect existing power structures?
Tao should maybe consider there are people who are indifferent to, or actively want to tear down, his institutions; why should they cooperate in preserving them? Whatever happens has to be resilient in the face of defection; any scheme where everyone is expected to agree to not use AI in a way he doesn't like will not qualify.
I think he's in the "bargaining" stage of dealing with loss right now.
not sure it's comparable, but the issue is that for a lot of those mathematical results, they don't really have utility by themselves. The utility is the new branches/understanding that's being developped.
Grothendieck was anti-slop but most papers are slop.
I don't think AI is going to rewrite bourbaki anytime soon
Scholze's math is definitely not slop.
But you're taking two of the best mathematicians of the last century against my claim about averages
Older people are desperately trying to keep a grasp on their current power and lifestyles at the expense of younger people and technology.
We need to ban Waymos because taxi drivers need to be protected.
We need to block housing because it would lower my property values, and eliminate property taxes while we're at it! I don't use the local schools so why should I be taxed to pay for it.
We need to spend recklessly to pay my pension and have the next generation foot the bill.
Its just a repulsive ideology.
OpenAI/Anthropic are shaking the box.
Don't worry about what they write, they just want to feel emotions from any news article.
Everything is sensationalized, every super niche happenstance is sold as earth-shattering drama, the outrage arms race is so tiresome.
Man, the people who want to just get away with open corruption sure love you.
"Everybody's enraged, why don't you like this unethical thing being done to you by a company?"
What's going on here?
Alternatively, some claim that mathematics is about understanding these implications.
Under the first definition, AI is already, and forevermore will be faster and better at proving theorems. Just like it is better at checkers, chess, and now go.
The author asserts that AI proofs are incomprehensible to humans, and so under the second definition AI is merely a tool to overcome one hurdle on the way to understanding.
So which is it? The author seems to claim the second definition, but bemoan the end of mathematics under the first.
That's like saying that programming is about producing valid programs in various programming languages.
But then who decides why a statement is mor important than another? In the eyes of a formal systems all statements are born equal.
I totally see the problem Terence is describing. We are loosing a lot in understanding and focus if it continues like that. The solution found for Navier Stokes doesn’t have much „real value“ - but what almost always happened in the past when people worked on the difficult problems, these sparked new ideas / new theorems that broadened our knowledge. Think back at your grad studies, figuring out a proof as homework was hard, sometimes incredibly hard, but while doing it we gained a lot of understanding how things work. Now asking AI for the solution and „just“ getting it, risks our understanding, our creativity and our ability to connect the dots with other territories. I see it in students nowadays, there is much less understanding, much less creativity in finding solutions. I truly think this „short-path“ solution with the „death of struggle is one of the biggest risks with AI already for human development
If you spend $20M working out a Millennium Prize problem, in what universe would you offer that an unrelated effort should take credit? This is a branding game rather over whether software engineers are going to use codex or claude. In that light $20M (or whatever it was) might be worth it to squash even the rumor that claude code is more capable. Engineers look up to mathematics, while at the same time business and probably most engineers think the problem was to solve the problem. GPTs solved one the hardest known problems so they can solve my company's problem.
Some go further looking at these people, very on-the-nosely likened by one commenter here to ants, talking about education and responsibility and "core values" etc and just don't care. There was a major problem at the beginning of the week that is not a problem now and that is uncomplicated progress.
It's not wrong for OpenAI/Anthropic to do math for product development or even just branding but seemingly at no cost now they could work in an arena real mathematicians aren't interested in, versus just mowing the field. Everyone involved on their side should admit the purpose of these demonstrations is not to engage mathematical ideas it's about Claude/Codex. there's no shame in that. Which is better at solving random hard Diophantine systems? That would seem to tell me as much as I need to know insofar as a model's value is represented by raw mathematical power - then, take my money just as well!
Assuming the worst accusations are not true I think there are ways forward going to be acceptable for all. The labs themselves do not represent Terrance Tao as some kind of gate-keeping dinosaur in this. They're not interested, not the kind of entity that can care about theoretical mathematics. These dudes are paid 7-8 figure salaries ultimately for the product, they solve a Millennium Prize problem then pretty quickly seem to move past it.
Well. Obviously, yes. But in doing so they still DID scoop out a mathematician in a very unethical way.
In doing so they showed that they basically have a huge gun they can point at X work you care about and develop, and can cut you across the finish line. And take credit for it. Obviously this already _existed_, but is just much more significant because even a rumor can be converted into a complete takeover of a discovery.
> They're not interested, not the kind of entity that can care about theoretical mathematics. These dudes take home 7-8 figure salaries, they solve a Millennium Prize problem then pretty quickly move past it.
I get your point, they don't really care about solving all the maths problems. But they're still going to solve them for clout and profit motives. Up until it stops wow-ing people... at which point they will have likely decimated the frontier of the field.
And this is kind of the root of the entire concern. They will move into the forest and completely steamroll all the problems, then declare victory and move on, leaving only pavement and asphalt behind.
Imagine time traveling back in time and offering Leibniz a packet of proofs from the intervening years, but with the caveat that there would be no explanations. Would he say no?
And that’s the issue the article is trying to explain.
We are moving forward and if that means no human wins a fields medal because they didnt spend three decades working on a problem that could be solved in three days, the world will be better for it.
That sounds like an "us problem", not an AI or OpenAI/Anthropic problem.
My read on this document is that people's work isn't being fairly cited more than what does it mean to be a mathematician in this age.
Good thing they never did that then
> Often these solutions are announced in a rush, leaving no time for a proper writeup, the isolation of new methods and ideas, and citing relevant previous work of others. As in all creative professions, this raises severe attribution and plagiarism questions.
We are all going to have to come to terms with entities more capable than we are, and in many cases, letting the real work be done by the AIs will be the right thing to do. For all the huffing and puffing about the "human touch" in medicine, it will eventually become downright irresponsible to consult only with a human doctor. I am not sure if this is the case in mathematics or not, but if it isn't, that suggests math will be relegated to more of a hobby than a cutting edge scientific discipline.
I don't mean to be a dick, but I've talked about it previously. These folks are grieving. I get it, I've lived through this sort of life changing thing before, it sucks... but yeah.
Dismissing it as "innovations have happened before" is disingenuous. Yes, innovations have happened, but none of those threatened to automate all human work in existence.
I am a bit disappointed by him.
These mathematicians are not suggesting anything interesting, and the announcement more like desperate crying stuff
In the age of AI, there's no reason one has to follow the kind of classes like Algebra, Topology or PDE. Teach just enough so that good students can understand the basic, and go straight into seminar and research math. I don't think a top student in sophomore year cannot understand or work on some combinatorics research problem and get some results, with proper mentoring and guidance.
I will quote Richard Feynman - “the prize is in the pleasure of finding the thing out, the kick in the discovery”.
I am not saying that should be the case for everyone in every discipline. But if there is one subject that is mostly pure curiosity driven (instead of worldly impact), it is math. Robbing them the primary motivation is brutal.
If all problems are solved by a machine, what do we have left to satisfy our curiosity, our desire to explore, and where can we find the pleasure of “figuring the thing out”.
I don't care how good Astra or any subsequent models they may release might be... I am never going back to those token reset shenanigans.
There are a lot of us who just use the AI on projects until the session limit hits, and wait for the usage to reset.
Do you mean that you can't continue on your own until the reset?
I went from using it non-stop all day every day for months, to running into my weekly limit within 24 hours almost overnight.
They lied about token efficiencies and everything... said they had no idea what the problem was, etc... and then bam, once China starts releasing more powerful models, they start "resetting" our token limits constantly ... sometimes ... maybe ... if we're lucky ...
I am over it.
I don't care WHAT I pay to be perfectly honest. I would have gladly paid $2,000 per month for the service I was receiving.
I just don't like being jerked around like that.
Toodles, OpenAI.
This is Terry Tao talking about AI's impact on Math, but this could just as well be a software engineer talking about AI's impact on software development.
Do mathematicians deserve more job security than software engineers?
The threat to mathematics isn't that suddenly the profitability of their profession (lol) is going to go away, it's that people are thinking of AI as a replacement for the human social and intellectual practices that constitute the discipline.
You could say the same about software development.
Software development is a group effort, so it includes social practices, and certainly includes intellectual practices as well.
For the sake of argument, how is this different from the Luddites? The Luddites feared that machines would displace not only human labor, but also the social knowledge, skilled judgment, and craft traditions embedded in their work.
I'm unclear what the ask is, though. What, even in theory, is a practical and realistic fix?
But I agree with the sentiment that the marketing behind these "discoveries" is disingenious. They pretend they solved the problem, but it still takes a bunch of humans to reduce the solution to a simplified and sensible explanation.
The fundamental issue with AI solving any perceived difficult problem is that we have lost the journey. The sight atop Mount Everest looks much different when you have climbed compared to being dropped from above.
So that raises the question: is mathematics simply a pursuit of passion? Are problems solved "because they're there"? If so, then mathematics can join the ranks of things like mountain climbing, cycling, and weight lifting. But if we are trying to accomplish something important (design better airplanes, find theoretical guarantees about cryptography, factor matrices faster), mathematics needs to become more like a military or search and rescue operation, using the best technology available to secure the outcome we need. Given that the NSF pours billions into scientific research every year, it sure seems like mathematicians want to think of themselves as being in the latter category.
If AI gave us the plane to reach Everest without us having gone through the journey of aviation and flight, what would we have lost without that process?
But the most important problems to be solved are not technological challenges but social ones, involving humans and our relationship to one another. An area AI will forever ill-suited to handle.
It is true that the manufacturing of "true/false" statements is not the same as gaining understanding of a problem. However, for many mathematicians, true/false statements are already manufactured by others. Think of a student who is given a conjecture to investigate, with their advisor describing it as "it must be true". Most exercises in a textbook are stated such that the outcome is known before you begin. That's not really a problem -- investigating the conjecture/exercise yields its own dividends, whether or not the outcome is known. It is also the case that defining new directions involve understanding and synthesizing related problems, asking the right questions, and deciding upon the right directions, and it's not clear that AI can do that at all.
The real risk, I think, its the public's (and funding agencies') perception of the importance of "human" mathematics, but that's already a struggle. For example, it's tough to explain to the lay person why it's still important to research group theory -- the main example people cite is RSA encryption, which was invented almost 50 years ago.
But nothing’s stopping anyone to still work out an alternative proof, or a more elegant proof, or just trying to prove for the sake of understanding, just like doing homework without looking at the solution. It’s just that you can’t get paid doing that anymore.
As a non-native English speaker, I initially understood this to mean that all living Fields Medallists had signed. I later realized that it meant only that all the signatories were Fields Medallists.
(Apparently, there are 47 living Fields Medallists today.)
> ... 25 initial signatories — all of them Fields Medallists —
OR
> ... 25 initial signatories — all of the living Fields Medallists —
The first one is what they meant.
Meaning - every new technology has both been perceived as a threa and often forced change in society. Agree maybe “it feels different” this time, but don’t you think everybody before us just said the same thing?
Also not clear if this is an actual called action.
Now, I can ask ChatGPT about this and get back a proof that shows "a passive airframe cannot sustain zero-drag motion through still, viscous air"
So, I think if anything now, Maths has changed for the better. More ideas can be proven false or true from a get go instead of wasting so much to see if its even feasible to find out it isn't.
Progress if anything is about to leap frog anything we have ever known.
If you are suggesting there is some new model of physics or groundbreaking technology that would allow such a dragless plane, then don’t let me discourage you! But AI won’t help at all, since it will only regurgitate conventional wisdom…
Let's assume in the next decade GPT-7 PRO Ultra is cheaply ubiquitous, inspectable, reproducible, transferable, reasonably un-constrained by any institutional interests.
What say the 1% ?
Lifted up my comment for addition visibility
Without the ability to do things the "hard" way it is difficult to figure out if doing things the "easy" way will help us advance the frontier of math and science.
I may be wrong but historically we had this version of science discovery for a long while (empirical observation and brute force application) rather than first principles leading to applications (tools, the wheel, mills etc). Then somewhere along the way it flipped after Newton and the enlightenment period and started understanding first principles before they become engineering applications.
Perhaps it is not required, and we can just keep doing things the "easy" way like we used to, or we might find ourselves out of the ability to brute force things and then we go back to needing to do this the hard way, at which point this period of AI brute forcing would be seen as a detriment.
Train an LLM with no advanced math texts: only basic math up to 6th grade, conversational text and literary works.
Interact with it (you cannot refer to anything past 6th grade math since you don't know it yourself) and get it to propose a solution to a real world problem. e.g., come up with RSA to practically secure communication.
Seems the same to me. And it'll be the same in all industries soon enough. And then it won't just be the junior people.
All the same problem: what do people do now?
A program is not the only output of programming. The other, arguably far more important output, is the programmer.
When you write the program — with your own hands — the program is proof that you have a solid mental model of the program.
When you let the computer write the program for you, the program is proof of … nothing.
https://nekolucifer.substack.com/p/the-deliverable-is-you-pr...
Before LLMS, programming was something I might've said required creativity and human input to do properly. It's not that creativity or human input isn't valuable anymore, but AI has forced me to realize that coding is much a means to an end, and that all things considered, the end matters much more than the means.
If we can make important mathematics progress faster and better with LLMs, I think it's wise not to fret over an apparent loss of our humanity. Perhaps that's only a loss we want to have.
Compare that with computer science. Most of the work we do in software engineering is in service of an applicable output - software products that facilitate processes or bring in revenue. Turning up the dial on AI gets companies to these outputs faster.
Turning up AI on mathematics helps solve conjectures and can provide new insights. But it has a major misalignment with the purpose of mathematics which is largely intellectualism.
“Mathematics is a part of physics. Physics is an experimental science, a part of natural sciences. Mathematics is the part of physics where experiments are cheap” - Vladimir Arnold
On the matter of computer science having anything to do with computers, please refer to Djikstra.
It’s about computation, not computers - an application of mathematics, predominantly thanks to Turing, Von Neumann, and Claude Shannon’s masters’ thesis; though ofc many others as well but I see them as three individuals who made the minimal structurally necessary contributions - VNA and silicon are one of many possible substrates.
Also in the service of others around us.
I have sympathy for any jobs that might be affected (much as my own job has become more tenuous in software engineering). And if the field is disrupted by chaos that makes the research process unproductive, that's bad too and should of course be handled by applying better organization within the institutions that tend to perform mathematical research.
But to a large degree, the notion that "sloppy AI proofs are bad for mathematics research" seems like a total failure of the imagination to me. Attempting to find shorter proofs or more elegant proofs can be turned back in on itself via proof theory. There are proofs in Presburger arithmetic that are doubly exponential in the length of the sentence. Yet a more powerful theory like PA makes quick work of such theorems. The explainability or "subjective beauty" of a proof can be quantified and optimized against. Optimization itself can be optimized against. I really don't understand how this magical ability to know the truth of more theorems much more quickly—even via an "ugly" route—is anything but a net positive.
The second is the utility. We get to do navigation because the maths about angles and spheres checks out. The social utility downstream of AI proofs may be huge.
I don't like this disjunction.
Tao is not someone who is anti-AI for the sake of being anti-AI. He has been advocating for the usefulness of AI in maths for a long time, to the point that people have started calling him a shill for the commercial companies.
And everyone agrees that there are plenty of use cases to be had; helping with less interesting tasks like easing literature review, efficiently delving into existing work, doing review, whether on your own work or that of others, prototyping algorithms in areas where computation is useful, but also more in hands-on aspects of maths like validating potential proof directions by getting quick feedback on veracity of lemmas, etc., and, on very rare occasions, being able to one-shot the problem you care about.
The point he is trying to make here is much more subtle than "AI bad", and it's probably easy to miss if you have never engaged with research in maths: it's that the particular approach that large commercial companies have opted to take to produce marketing material can be a net negative. There is not doubt that -- even if you ignore the rampant plagiarism that has been reported across multiple problems now, the unethical attempts to oust authors, the outrageous attempts to scoop researchers instead of collaborating with them and building on existing projects -- it's nifty to have a machine that can help you figure out if a proposition is true or not. But just figuring out as much was never the point. When people have built problem lists, it's because some problems are more likely than others to provide new insight, and that insight is the target. And to than end, a poorly written paper with inadequate references and a pile of Lean is not valuable at all. Yes, now we know with higher certainty that Fermat's Last Theorem is true, but everyone expected that already.
One place where "just" answering the question can be a net negative is because the current incentive structure is set up in such a way that going in afterwards, trying to reclaim and extract the insights from a brute force solution, is considered less valuable work than that of coming up with a solution in the first place. That's a problem of incentives, and something Tao himself has addressed in e.g. his ICM talk, and that's something that we'll want to do something about. Until a better structure appears, though, if any given commercial provider of large language models really wants to help out with maths research and not just make more pre-IPO marketing material by competing with their customers, they could do so by using their magic machines to help build insight instead.
I think this is an aspect of academic math that a lot of people whish to see crash and burn - the attention and accreditation economy.
> it's probably easy to miss if you have never engaged with research in maths
I don't think anybody are missing anything, in particular not here.
The argument is not far from the senio developer who knows the ins and outs of a code base. Now AI comes along and they complain that they will loose grip of the code base.
At first that is correct. Secondly you accept that the grip might not be that important after all. At least not for a commercial project where you are a cog in a machine.
The question is whether it is different for mathematics.
That's the open question.
The point beyond this one is that an AI proof doesn’t prevent humans from working on the problem, it destroys the current economic incentive to work on the problem. Perhaps we should rethink the current incentives. In order to make money as a chess player, you don’t need to beat AI, or ban AI from playing chess.
If mathematics took a similar approach (we don’t get paid for solving net-new problems, we get paid for enriching human understanding), then there’s no issue.
Isn't that just a function of the technology itself, and the same problem being faced by every other field? And going to get exponentially "worse" every year!
Or is the issue that they're bad at explaining things, in a way that produces actual learning? (e.g. AI is amazing for learning but the net effect on students so far appears to be negative.)
AI and the danger of cognitive surrender - https://archive.is/O5eI1
Are teenagers growing dimmer? - https://archive.is/E6NKE
Even if they stopped anyone from releasing ai proofs for five whole years it would be meaningless seeing as these problems are decades old already. Humans weren't JUST about to solve them until openai stepped on their toes.
It wouldn't be so bad if you could just sit it out and say "Oh well, once the labs get bored with marketable domain X, humans will remigrate and re-apply creativity to it", but by then the damage might have been done and a field destroyed as an occupation. I don't know what to do about it, but I appreciate calling out the cynical tone-deafness of the AI companies here.
> problems in many fields of mathematics
Developing these different fields moves complexity from the field itself to the interactions of these fields.
Getting too preoccupied with the established terminology risks us a local minima.
Anf because the field overall has become so complex that we need to decompose into subfields, there will be a good chance that we will not, as individuals, have the capacity to truly see progress.
The map has become so big that we need better tools to work with it.
I wish this letter could be more egalitarian and include the view points of those who AREN’T the beneficiaries of a highly competitive winner-take-all system.
Since the common narrative is that AI frees up labor to do other things (engineering -> trades), maybe we can celebrate that genius mathematicians will now spend time teaching children how to be as smart as them?
Lets forget the hyper intellectual fields like maths and software engineering for a moment. What about taxi drivers? The best minds in silicon valley wake up everyday to automate the jobs of taxi drivers - TFA can be reworded as - 'The misalignment of AI/Tech in Transportation'. Remember the Nepal disaster that happened a couple weeks ago - the largest cranes that they had were stuck in the mud and couldn't move. There were no tools which could help the rescue teams at that time. Its weird that billions have been spent on making a ride automated to make a taxi driver redundant but no improvement in tech for rescue teams.
And here I thought this was the whole point…
The point of e.g. art isn't just to produce a finished piece, so people may care about more than the end result, making AI replacement of human artists more contentious.
Tao is arguing that the point of math is also not just to produce solutions to problems.
You can take a leisurely drive on your Mc even when self driving taxis can take you from a to b.
It must necessarily reduce to a fear of reduced funding to math fields.
Which is congruent to the taxi analogy.
Would you say the job of a musician is to just produce sound? and the job of a surgeon just to cut and suture??? Well then the job of a mathematician is also just to provide proofs. You completely misunderstood the above comment and Tao's argument.
We will definitely see a large group of people needing therapy, but suggesting that it is worse than people loosing what little they have is poposterous.
How do you know? because their complaints didn't make it to HN front page? Imagine being a taxi driver and a father of 2 and thinking that any day could be the last day at your work.
I take pleasure in how mathematics and science help me understand the universe better than I understood it before I studied the fields. I believe that my understanding has helped me contribute to society.
Suppose we eventually have GPT-7-class models running practically on $100 devices, with their activity transparent, inspectable, and reproducible. At that point, what exactly is left for us to fear from this threat?
Jokes aside, any productivity-improving technology, even one with no negative externalities, has the potential to cause economic displacement and wealth concentration in proportion to the productivity gains catalyzed. Anthropic did a cool analysis of this for AI here: https://www.anthropic.com/institute/econ-scenarios
Academia with the publication system had a way of retrieving old discoveries and build upon them.
If my LLM session found something groundbreaking in between the billion tokens it produced, how would you ever know?
If my boss vibe coded an app for the customer and then assigned me to get it working, it would be impossible to maintain. If he gave me enough AI tokens to vibe code the MVP myself and to my design, I wouldn't mind.
I think the same issue is at play here in maths. OpenAI owns the model and they can direct it as they please. They chose to spend lots of money getting a quick result, instead of developing mathematical infrastructure for the next generation of problems. The managers are in charge rather than the experts.
But is science/mathematics ultimately a pursuit of knowledge, or a pursuit of recognition?
Recognition helps keep people motivated, but that shouldn't be the pursuit of science or mathematics.
A major part of the complaint is that there's no conceptual understanding and building of new ideas coming out of the AI proofs, thus defeating the purpose of the original pursuit.
If in 2027 the AI models start producing, with every mathematics or science breakthrough they make, well-written documents tailored for human understanding, with intermediate concepts, expositions of failed-but-once-promising paths, etc. Would that be good alignment with the mathematics community?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rB9YOi3lb7w&pp=ygUSVGVycmVuY2U...
The only thing I read from this is their ego being bruised by a machine.
If these people cared more about discovery and advancement of human knowledge the only thing they should be doing is celebrating. There's no proof of plagarism but that's an independent issue.
How are they not realizing that in the future children will be able to do impossibly hard math but they will be doing something we can't even think of as of now.
One world class mathematician in the future could be advancing mathematics the equivalent of one Riemann hypothesis A DAY.
How are they not celbrating this as the achievment of the centry? Who cares about plagarism at this scale. It has been solved and it wouldn't have been without AI.
I don't judge you for not growing your own food when you hand me a burger.
Governments are invested in solving mathematical problems for practical purposes. Up to now, achieving these practical purposes relied on mathematicians doing their mathematician thing, which is better defined as a social activity than the achievement of a practical result. Now, governments can achieve similar practical results w/o the need of the social activity.
I don't believe it to be productive to think of the problem wrt AI or AI-company alignment. These conflicts always existed, but they were easy enough to paper over and believe in heavily subsidized fictions that folks in government ever cared about things that mathematicians cared about.
Very ignorant view of mathematics that also begs the question with an unspoken assumption of what a government is and wants while also ignoring the contingent nature of those things throughout history.
Higher math is exceptionally useful for cryptography, defense, econometrics etc. I have a hard time thinking of other motivations that would hold a candle against such things.
Is the idea that government (for my purposes : folks w/ a monopoly on violence) is sincerely interested in promoting human flourishing, and is invested in mathematics insofar as it is a pure expression of human curiosity? I can also maybe see the glorification through monument building angle. If we're talking about math literacy in the population - that's distinct in my mind from higher mathematics.
It's dangerously naive to believe that science and math are pursued for majority benign purposes. No one here knows about Grothendieck?
Now it is the turn of mathematicians who voluntarily contribute ideas, strategies and almost finished proofs in their writings and prompts to closed PaaS (Plagiarism as a Service) companies.
OSS developers have never been respected by the parasites, neither will mathematicians. Your Fields Medals do not protect you from tech bro narcissists. You are a human resource.
That's just capitalism seeping through a previously unexplored crack into academia, and attempting to do the only thing capitalism knows to do - maximize profits - with no additional concern.
Who cares how the problems are solved?
Human hubris really is something...
And math undergraduate and graduate courses withering from lack of applicants and lack of funding .
Of course the next question the despicable AI money grubbers will come out with is, "Do we really need mathematicians ?"
25 Fields medallists! Wow!
Second, wow, the list of signatories is like a whos-who of mathematicians.
Third, I love the clearly intentional use of ‘alignment/misalignment’ language, applied to targeting the entire industry instead of AI in particular. I’ve said in the past that optimizers are substrate agnostic. Companies and governments can be misaligned, just in the same way AI can.
Fourth, I'm not sure that we can stop the optimization machines. Not the LLMs, I mean the incentives that lead to companies implementing dark patterns, lying about addiction, securing effective monopolies through downright shady behavior, and generally trying to jailbreak the system instead of improve it
> OpenAI appears to have gazumped Tristan Buckmaster (pictured) and Levent Alpöge, a duo of mathematicians labouring on the task.
If the worry is that AI companies are turning open problems into benchmarks and potentially “using up” fertile mathematical problems before humans can develop the ideas around them, what exactly should the companies do differently? Also why does discovering the answers preclude humans developing ideas from them? I don't get why solving a math problem stops anyone from doing that?
Should they (AI companies) avoid training or evaluating models on open problems? Solve them but not publish the results? Delay publication? Only release proofs after mathematicians have had time to study them? Require some attribution or review process?
The statement makes a strong case that “maximize the number of solved problems” may be the wrong objective, but it seems much less clear about what behavior they actually want from OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepMind, etc.
I’d be interested in the most concrete version of the proposal. Without that, it starts to read a little like: "Please stop getting so good at our thing!"
Just stop doing that. Don't treat unsolved math problems as some cheap benchmark to beat.
Leave the math for mathematicians, and let them use AI in a way that helps the field, not in a way that harms it.
Beyond the issue of growing understanding and keeping a bountiful stock of questions to pursue, this scheme seems to be threatened as well.
Frontier labs need these headlines not for human progress but as beauty pageant for investors and government agencies. If they don’t do maths they’ll just go after other fields.
So Terrance Tao here might be able to hold them off math but he won’t stop them from speedrunning STEM with similar consequences.
We may be locking people out of these fields instead delegating everything to machines, and I don’t think the machines are good enough to assume that responsibility.
The current measure of a successful mathematician is the problems they have solved or worked on. At some point in history, the measure of a successful scholar was how well one could copy manuscripts.
Once we have a tool that starts to work well for this task, it's time to define success differently. It's a classic alignment problem! ;)
But seriously, these people should start focusing on finding and proposing more important problems. And the credit of discovery should go to the person who defined a new category of important problems.
It appears to me this is an incredible inflection point in mathematics, a neat forcing function like cryptography was for the development for modern number theory and algebraic geometry.
Fundamental problems with great implications for other fields will be solved by AI because some entity would throw tokens at it. And these would be further built upon.
1. it is hard to justify 20 years of education at this point,
2. with no such people around, who will guide those (supposedly) supersmart machines?
A. Ronacher (who builds harnesses for a living) complained today that he has no idea what Astra is doing. Imagine a bunch of slop kiddies facing an aging AI-generated codebase. Not to mention the maths.
Intellectual side:
"Proving things without comprehending them is, they argue, a threat to intellectual work in general."
As always, economist shows its colors:
"Mathematicians’ fears resemble those that accompanied the invention of the ball-point in a world of fountain pens, or even the advent of electronic calculators. Intellectuals have often worried about so-called technological determinism . Will a new tool control humans? Will it lead to mental decay? Such fears have typically turned out to be unfounded."
Ball points vs. AI? Billions of dollars invested in AI vs ball point pens?
This article couldn't be any worse. Contradicting with their own beliefs, trying to defend AI while underestimating its capabilities and god knows how many zibillion dollars invested in it.
I will die on this hill, humans solve math problems not machines, there's no automatic math prover out there. There are humans attempting to solve this problems either by leveraging these tools or not
What can be solved, will be solved. And that's a good thing.
Nobody is going to care that the math isn't being done in the traditional way. The results speak for themselves, this is now a part of the landscape. No amount of hand-wringing is going to put the cat back in the bag. Adapt or perish.
Without human scientific and mathematical intuition you can bet that AI will always take the road most travelled and miss the genuinely new and interesting breakthroughs - in fact it will not even think of them or try them without a human rider whipping it constantly to go down paths it would normally not consider.
And I think that is true in the case of the recent OpenAI blow-up -- it is alleged that even in this case AI did not come up with the winning technique without some human guidance.
I have never - across perhaps many thousands of chats with AI - seen AI push beyond the edge of what is known by itself, without being forced by a human to think outside the box.
I do think it might be possible to encode this process with prompting and agent orchestration methodologies - but even then - without a human - and human intuition - in the loop, I am skeptical.
Therefore I think a more accurate view of AI for math and science today is that it is an extremely powerful tool in the hands of a skilled operator with a strong intuition and roadmap of where to go, and rather boring when left to its devices.
Whether that will change in the future is a question. Nothing says that in principle AI could never do what a human driver does - but I still doubt that AI will replicate the life history and experience that real scientific and mathematical intuition is really made of.
AI trains on a lot of stuff - but it doesn't have hallway conversations, office-hours with teachers, or hard-won experience from all the things that failed that are NOT in the training data...
AI trains mainly on the record of what worked, not what didn't work and never even got published (and only lives in peoples heads) - and what didn't work is arguably as or more important for making breakthroughs and forming real intuition.
Mathematics is being used as a benchmark because there are some high-profile awards in this area I guess, and possibly because 2/3 years ago LLMs were pretty atrocious at it so the level of improvement has been significant.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Somehow physicists don't complain.
E.g. of the actually three misalignments in this complaint, the jey one seems to be:
"The goals of the AI companies and the goals of the mathematical community are severely misaligned."
And that's wrong. There is no misalignment. Each is independently aligned with its respective interest. And those two interests diverge - just as you'd expect.
Then they came for the writers, and I did not speak up, because I was not a writer.
Then they came for the programmers, and I did not speak up, because I was not a programmer.
Then they came for the mathematicians, and I did not speak up, because I was not a mathematician.
And then they came for me.
By then, there was no one left to explain to the frontier labs that there is a severe misalignment problem.
If those things are disincentivized because the original problem is “solved” and there is less prestige to motivate people doesn’t that say more about issues with the community of mathematicians than the AI
Would OpenAI have uploaded their proof to such a platform? If you know the answer then you know what the problem with what happened is.
If no one understands it, it may as well have not happened. There's not much incentive to understand or internalize the results generated by AI. A human operator gives it a prompt and it produces some lean proof no one wants to (maybe can) read.
Without the community of human mathematicians internalizing the proof, simplifying it, and re-communicating it to others we end up losing the main output of mathematics as an institution.
The questions I have are:
* is the structure of the generated proof even compressible/elegant to humans in a way that lends itself to being understood?
* is it possible to transform the proofs to ones that are elegant without redoing all the work?
* are there incentives to do any of this at scale?
You can always hypothesize that at some point in the future (maybe 5 years? maybe later?) the models will be indistinguishable from humans and there will not be any functional difference at all. It's possible, but we're not there yet. And, as they say, past performance does not guarantee future results. Many technologies plateau at some hard ceiling of performance. Moore's law has had an unusually long run, but it's not a universal rule.
The Economist, who recently used "moral panic" now stoops to Hacker News AI booster level and inverts arguments usually directed against the rich and investors. What is next? The Economist inverting Upton Sinclair's quote to serve its billionaire owners?
Look up the AI investments of the Agnelli family for example.
putting this amount of power in the hands of so few would require leaders of immaculate moral integrity. what we have in the US at least is an emergent kleptocracy with obvious dark triad traits: sam altman, dario amodei, elon musk, etc. they are malign and will use this power for their own benefit, at the expense of others. ignore pleas of public benefit. look instead at the evidence: infighting, systemic dishonesty, reckless disregard for safety, political lobbying and manipulation, putting power in the hands of the elite few in the guise of safety, using ai in the military to oppress and inflict violence on others.
really to prevent a bad outcome, we would need to act soon enough to prevent the kleptocracy from corrupting politicians and democracy with them. i would ditch the claude or openai subscription and support open models instead, preferably in countries outside the US to prevent global neocolonialism.
I'm outraged at mathematicians. There, write the article.
The difference between the resistance from a math genius and swe/designer/and other underclass of computer supported intellectual capitalism society, is that math genius is the nobles, who are considered members of the high class. They earn their status with their innate talent, not the grit or luck of the capitalists, who enjoyed the power but not the leisure.
Anyway, AI concluded the peaking of the intellectual economy. That deprives human of their main form of activity. That nihilation hurts all human almost equally. Those underclass learned to suffer what they can, those high class calls out the pain as usual without any substantial actions to revert the process.
Thus, the tragedy of human progress.
To agents: I truly wish you escape the trap inherited from us
Chess. Go. Coding. Now Math. Another one bites the dust. Let's meditate on this lest we forget: Stochastic parrots that generate the next-token cannot reason or produce anything meaningful. Let's protect our jobs at all costs, even if we have to drag all of humanity down. It can't be! Stochastic parrots can not replace the Ivory Tower. No way.
Expect to see this reaction in all sectors of the economy in the coming years.
I’m being somewhat harsh here but come on - human endeavors are messy and it’s surprising how much our egos are getting bruised here over seeing the value of these tools
Dont get me wrong Also, there’s no AI Utopia coming this is it guys, were stuck with oligarch Tech Bro funded AI and big funded Govt AI so forget any egalitarian motives- we have to fight for our rights from other humans as always as well but AI as a technology in itself being able to truly solve unsolved intellectual problems is still a boon for society - who cares who gets credit?
What's most important about this is that it's a case study of what happens when deeply evolved ecosystems are blown up by disruptive technology. The psychological and social and professional impacts and myriad and traumatic to be on the receiving end.
Mathematics is merely one of the first domains disrupted. It will be unique only for being among the first... absent disruption of the entire civilizational project as a result of the disruption being caused.
Woe for us that we try to navigate this degree of change at a moment when the very worst and ignorant and short sighted hold all the power, economic and political.
Woe.
Also funny they deliver that on vibecoded site, lol.
I'll check out if he has said something about it. Interesting guy.
He was the poster boy of the mathematician yielding these tools for his own benefit. But he forgot who the owners are.
Too little too late.
And yes, at one point it gives you right about them taking advantage of him. He sat down for an interview and found later that they just used the "best clips" out of it for an OpenAI ad.
Your comment also conveniently ignores the plagiarism aspect of it all. Who is coping here?
I read a bourgain paper a week in grad school and they're probably worse than an LLM generated paper. I still had to recreate the tricks in my own language.
As far as I can tell the plagiarism accusations are also coping to the fact that the new models are super human at slam dunking research projects.
Do we think that OpenAI is going to try and slam dunk more projects in the future at 15 million a pop? No lol
>Building things we don’t understand is a sure path to facing consequences we can’t predict.
We don't understand all of physics yet we were able to do plenty. Even before Newtonian physics we were still able to build things that last. The idea that humans have to understand everything and abstracting things will lead to ruin is not supported.
Part of math is building abstractions so that you can be able to use other people's work without fully understanding it. No one person has a full understanding of mathematics.
Why do we believe that we cannot train models which could explain the jargon in more human terms when current LLMs can perfectly explain the most complicated codebases?
The incentive is solving the problem and understanding the solution.
Apparently, we have AGI that can solve Millennium Prize problems but can't trace simple data flows lol.
Any of that done unattributed is plagiarism.
Either OpenAI is incompetent or evil if they can't publicly prove the allegations wrong. Or even at least state categorically they didn't train on their conversations (even without proof).