The scientific debate over AI in mathematics. ~ Oswaldo Royett. https://www. oswaldosrm.com/single-post/the -scientific-debate-over-ai-in-mathematics # AI4Math
And don't even get me started on who has the advantageous passport(s) for research & conference travel v who needs to apply for visas months in advance only to get denied despite ample proof of intent.
I think I saw the thread that prompted this question. Related to that, part of the issue is that "the proof of a theorem" has to be symbol manipulation, but is not necessarily what we as mathematicians value in a paper. It has proven to be easy to train an LLM against, however...
I don't like the implication that the anti-AI crowd does not include scientists
Even if proof checking is a part of maths (it’s not, in any mainstream way) or will be (which I don’t particularly believe), it does not give the output. If we are interpreting “output” in the most restrictive way (and we shouldn’t), the output of maths is a paper or a book or a talk, not Lean code.
This is what AI companies (and their fanboys, including in academia) are trying to convince the world of. Proof checking is just proof checking (which is indeed symbol manipulation), but the rest of the maths is missing from the picture, which is what I assume @barbarafantechi.bsky.social is saying.
Saksham Sharma, Postdoc at Caltech It is as if there existed, for what seems like millennia, tracing back to the very origins of mathematics and of other arts and sciences, a sort of “conspiracy of silence” surrounding these “unspeakable labors” which precede the birth of each new idea, both big and small, and which thereby […]
Indira Chatterji, Professor at Université Côte d’Azur The noise. The slop. The conversation dominated by AI stuff. I guess that’s a welcomed break from mulling over the fact that we are all dying, if not quickly cooked then slowly poisoned. Meanwhile our institutions want us to answer the following question: “Is AI killing math?” First […]
there's a real tension and puzzle in the essay about the relation between understanding and mathematical culture and discourse. Harris wisely stops short of saying we cannot say what it is in language, instead going with "it is hard to be rationally discursive about mathematical understanding"
#AI will end humanity: Where’s the proof? | Ed Zitron www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svwm...
If you had told me six years ago that it would soon be possible to spend $10 million to get an answer to a Millennium Prize problem, I would never have believed you. It is hard to overstate how remarkable that that is.
one of the most annoying things about the Navier-Stokes result is that what should have been a straightforward, undeniable win for the "LLMs can create new knowledge" case is tainted
cannot believe OpenAI managed to fuck up the monumental achievement of "our AI solved a Millennium Prize Problem"
[This is a guest post by Po-Shen Loh, crossposted from his blog, where an illustrated version appears. This blog post was initially written in a different file format and converted using AI. — T.] Similar logic applies to every industry and every job. And it comes to the conclusion that we won’t have enough people […]
Are there authors out there using AI and getting published? Yes. Are all of them caught? No. However, I think it's a dangerous, irresponsible, and reckless accusation to make when there is little or no proof, especially when the author's only fault is that their work didn't click with someone.
The recent formalized proofs of famous mathematical problems, carried out by entities which in the discussions are sometimes referred to as the devil, remind me of the following soviet short film called 'The mathematician and the devil'. Unfortunately I was unable to find a version with good English subtitles, maybe I will get around to create some myself. Until then, the generated ones here are n…
The future of the human mathematician anakedrhymejam.substack.com/p/the-future-o… #AI #math (No easy answers. An interesting read)
In 1995, Newt Gingrich lobotomized Congress’s technical brain trust. It should be rebuilt. By Max Moran: https://prospect.org/2026/09/18/artificial-intelligence-congress-office-tchnology-assessment/
OpenAI is close to solving the Hodge Conjecture, another of the seven Millennium Prize Problems, according to a person with knowledge of the work.
Read more: https://thein.fo/46vQYm9
Formal verification still pushes the burden back onto the specification itself. If an agent generates the spec and the implementation together, it just verifies its own misunderstandings.
A proof checks against a fixed standard. An explanation is scored by whether someone else can now go on. Those are different referees, so one ledger imports the proof standard by default.
Grant Sanderson's (3blue1brown) guest post on Terry Tao's blog pretty much affirms and expands on my opinion of what's missing in maths academia: more maths communication overall, and especially towards different audiences.
David Craven, professor at the University of Birmingham A mathematician sits down to work on a problem. She knows the rough outline of the proof. First, she gets her LLM to check the literature to make sure that she hasn’t been scooped recently, then feeds the intermediate lemmas into the LLM to get its opinion […]
Two responses to "A severe misalignment of AI in mathematics". ~ Timothy Nguyen, M. Levent Doğan. https:// proofsandprompts.com/2026/09/1 8/two-responses-to-a-severe-misalignment-of-ai-in-mathematics/ # AI4Math
Mathematicians Hate AI. They Can’t Quit It https:// fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.wire d.com/story/mathematicians-cant-quit-ai/
[This is a guest post by Grant Sanderson. This blog post was initially written in a different file format and converted using AI. — T.] A sentiment echoing throughout the mathematics community right now is that solving problems and generating proofs have always served as proxies for the true goal of mathematicians, which is to […]
AI Use in Math Research 25.25% of Arxiv math papers acknowledged AI use in Aug. 2026. We use GPT-5.6 Sol to detect AI use acknowledgments and classify AI use cases, and Claude Fable 5 as a validator. The use cases can be divided into research use, which includes cases where AI may have contributed ideas or proofs, and non-research use, including writing, coding, and literature review. https:// epo…
ok but Tristan Buckmaster of NYU was the one who solved it first, with help from Anthropic employee Levent Alpoge, GPT 5.6 and Claude Opus for LEAN proof formalization
"The proof [...] was obtained in a conversation with ChatGPT-6 Astra on Tuesday, September 15, 2026 at 1:02 AM PDT. We then prepared this manuscript for public release, with the intent of uploading it on the morning of Thursday, September 17, 2026"
Shameless, and shameful. arxiv.org/abs/2609.207...
Agreed! But I think in the case of the abc conjecture, verifying that the conjecture was stated correctly in Lean wouldn't be that hard. Not nearly as hard as the amount of effort the community put into trying to understand the purported proof.
You ever think that someone actually completed some millennium prize level problem and thought “nope. Too ugly. Too embarrassing.”
Makes me chuckle.
The social scene around AI and AI safety is more unpleasant than I realized. I'm sure there are other sides to it. But when you get a lot of men with too much money who think they're saving the world, surrounded by groupies, what do you expect? Read the long Bluesky thread about this, collected on one page: https:// skywriter.blue/@segyges.bsky.s ocial/3mvom4b4dn22q I can't confirm thi…
OpenAI spending significant computation on cracking millennium prize mathematical problems sounds impressive, but I just don't care that much? It cost a lot of money. It's a narrow problem. No messy data. Relatively simple to verify. 1/2
Last year I co-founded the Foundation for Science and AI Research (SAIR) with some private donors to create a non-profit organization that could support responsible uses of AI in mathematics and the other sciences, independent of the major AI companies. Initially, our resources were rather limited, and our main activities consisted primarily of podcasts, short […]
In 2004, two mathematicians hypothesized a powerful kind of sandwich. A new proof has finally built it. www.quantamagazine.org/mathematicia...
Note from P&P: On 11 September 2026, 25 Fields Medallists co-authored the declaration “A Severe Misalignment of AI in Mathematics“, which at the time of posting has over 7000 signatures. Below are are two separate and independent submissions we received, respectively, on 15 and 16 September 2026, responding to this declaration. The first one is […]
"The five that remain are: the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer Conjecture, the Hodge Conjecture, P versus NP, the Riemann Hypothesis, and Yang-Mills existence and mass gap." # math # bigproblems # AIbait
Xiaoyu He, Assistant Professor at Georgia Institute of Technology What follows is an edited and abridged version of a longer essay. The full version is available at alkjash.github.io/ai-risk. It has been a topic of heated discussion in the mathematical community whether AI progress spells the end of mathematics as a human profession. In this essay, […]
had a dream that someone used the axiom of choice to prove that a mile equals a kilometer. I don't remember the proof but dream!me found it very convincing
I just submitted my abstract for the # AI and the Future of # Math seminar: Title: You are right, and I apologize. Abstract: Doing research changes the researcher. In this talk I will try to document my personal story with AI. I love computers and have been an early adopter of AI with a mostly positive outlook onto the future. Recently the picture has become a lot more grim. This has two reasons.…