Most of the boosterism around AI is also starting like religious mysticism, the kind of arguments religious people made (and make), trust in God/AI, abundance is here, no one will have to work. I wonder what that tells us?

As a sibling of your comment points out, "opposition to AI's convenience" is not Tao's position. He has used LLMs to help with the problems he's talking about -- https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/07/21/a-digestion-of-the... and https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/08/12/a-digestion-of-the... turn opaque straight-from-the-model results into things that can be understood.

The Sendov example has a piece coders will hopefully recognize: he found a formalization that was 1/6 the amount of code of the original one. And the analogy with code goes further--the messy version will run/pass the proof checker, but the one that's been cleaned up and made sense of is a better foundation for future work. That's true even for future LLM-assisted work.

So it's not about whether mathematicians take advantage of LLM help (Tao favors that) but, more or less, whether the point of math is just to make a bigger version of the GitHub dump vs. everything else: readability/comprehensibility, negative results that fill in the map around a problem (not just 'lighthouse' theorems), organizing results to plan out future work, and so on.

It also doesn't help that people are generally not optimistic about the future.

The economics in the West feel very strained right now, and this incredible tool has come along just in time to threaten one of the last bastions of middle-class safety: white collar jobs.

AI is just another technology, and all technologies should be employed in service to humans.

I think it’s reasonable for people to say “I like the way things were, I don’t like this new future you’re proposing, and I want to limit the technology that’s doing the thing I don’t like.”

There is nothing inevitable about AI. As a society we may decide it is fundamentally unhealthy or anti-human. We have banned or curtailed access and research for other technologies before.

The irony of what you said and how you said it is glaring.