We can use puzzles as a philosophical playground to think about the nature of insight, and compare human and artificial approaches. And we can explore what understanding means to us as human beings—both when we struggle toward it ourselves, and when we share it with each other.
When the students ask him to explain the solution he replies, "ChatGPT (GPT-5.6) was used for foundational research and proof development. The underlying mathematical ideas are the author’s. The author reviewed the final manuscript, read every proof, and takes full responsibility for its content."
A large study of Khan Academy’s math tutor program found no extra benefits from AI. “Seeking help with one’s own confusion remained a choice, and most students declined it most of the time.”
#aitutor
hechingerreport.org/proof-points...
Yeah, AI is obviously never going to be help rogue states make bioweapons, it's not going to be solving another Millennium Prize Problem, nor is it going to ever get better. EA has a track record of crying wolf and have been trying to push pandemic preparedness since like 2010 as a vanity project.
Some Mathematician. Some mathematicians don’t use LLMs at all. Some others use LLMs and desire to state which models they use in their papers. But if you use LLMs and do not hold this desire, you may choose to state “I used some LLMs to do this and that” without specifying which models you used. […]
[This is a guest post by Ivan Corwin. This blog post was initially written in a different file format and converted using AI. — T.] Mathematics and those mathematicians who guide its development have been central to societal advancement since antiquity. AI, like many tools that were invented by mathematicians (e.g., the abacus, slide rule, […]
A new metric for 'interesting' math theorems cuts overlap with Mathlib from 91.9% to 30.6% Researchers define a theorem's intrinsic interestingness as the ratio of its proof length to its statement length, then use a 27B model built on that metric to generate genuinely novel theorems instead of…
Yeah among other things they absolutely stole those mathematicians proof of Navier-Stokes, regardless of if they were deliberately trying to. OpenAI has zero control of what happens to data users give the chat bot.
The very human story of the discovery of non-sofic, non-MF and non-hyperlinear groups over the past two months.
Just a quick post to note that the International Council for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) has released a statement on mathematics and artificial intelligence (as well as a longer version), which makes many points echoing several already made recently here and elsewhere. The longer statement also makes reference to a recent statement by the […]
SciAm displays hilarious double standards.
Now that AI solved it, the forced option Buckmaster was working on, and Córdoba and Martínez-Zoroa were praised for, became the "wrong" problem.
Also, for the Euler problem, OpenAI solved the "right" problem and Buckmaster the "wrong" one.
[This is a guest post by Bryna Kra and Rachel Ward. -T.] The Summit on PhD Math Education in the Age of AI was held September 17–18, 2026, at Harvard’s Center of Mathematical Sciences and Applications (CMSA). It brought together twenty-four senior mathematicians from across the discipline, along with several current PhD students and postdocs, […]
Amit Harlev, PhD student at the Cornell Center for Applied Mathematics In the last half year there has been a massive shift in the “Math and AI” discourse, primarily driven by changes in AI capabilities. In almost no time at all the collective opinion went from “AI can’t do research level mathematics” to “AI can […]
Did anyone see that " math taunt" from the Iranians aimed at the Orange Guy? The math equation was posted by Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament and a chief negotiator of Tehran. Ghalibaf fired what international media dubbed a "maths missile" on social media. Ghalibaf posted a modified version of the Taylor Rule, a famous 1993 formula created by economist John Taylor t…
[This is a guest post by Amit Sahai. This blog post was initially written in a different file format and converted using AI. — T.] When I was an undergraduate student, I remember talking with several students who felt that the pace at which the top students could understand new math concepts was far too […]
Vladimir Lazić, Professor of Mathematics at Saarland University. Most days, for the last six months, I wake up feeling shame for the field we have become. Lined up towards a future most of us have not chosen; showing resistance on paper: signing petitions, creating initiatives, shouting in the wind. Led by people with no shame. […]
If a computer solves a millennium prize problem but there are no humans around too see then did it really solve a millennium prize problem?
Alessandro Della Corte, Professor at Università di Camerino, and initiator of \begin{proof} Imagine that in Babylon, 600 BC, they had today’s AI technology: deep learning, transformers, GPUs. The training data would consist only of pre-Greek mathematics, like ancient Egyptian and Babylonian mathematical traditions. I doubt that anyone, given only those ingredients, would believe that this […]
The Villanova study supposedly proved that AI content is indistinguishable from human writing. I'm saying it did nothing of the sort. litmagnews.substack.com/p/lets-study...
Ok, we agree there needs to be regulation.
We disagree on the capabilities. It's not true that OpenAI simply "yoinked" the results of a mathematician. From Buckminster's own statement, the majority of the work he was doing was to make the verified proof by another LLM suitable for publication.
If you drop a sloppy AI-generated proof of some theorem onto the internet hoping to be hailed as a hero, think twice. Mathematicians are sick of it. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.24779
Forecasters were mostly wrong about AI.
On capabilities
If you release a crappy AI-generated proof of some theorem, don't think you're going to become a hero. People will make fun of you.
3 researchers offered this proof that OpenAI's proof doesn't solve all cases (if I understand right, their "solution" doesn't have any of the real world applications a real solution would).
n.b. the researchers used AI to "decipher the OpenAI paper" 🤨
arxiv.org/html/2609.20...
AI.MATH With the AI.MATH initiative, we put forward draft positions on the future of mathematical research and mathematics degree programmes in the age of AI, alongside questions and possible answers. This is an initiative from Claudia Alfes , Thomas Nikolaus , and Andreas Thom. https://ai.math.ms/en/ also see: https://proofsandprompts.com/2026/09/23/ai-math-announcement/ #research #math #AI
[This is a guest post by Tapio Schneider. This blog post was initially written in a different file format and converted using AI. — T.] [This will be cross-posted on the CliMA blog.] The apparent proof of finite-time blow-up of the forced Navier-Stokes equation, announced by OpenAI on September 8, has brought into focus a […]
One difference is that referees for journals are anonymous. If one of us rushes to build on one of OpenAI's papers before anyone else gets the chance, it will be very public.
More generally, I think, and indeed hope, the whole idea of being admired for "winning races" is coming to an end soon.
The scenario you describe would indeed be extremely unfair, and I don't think I'm stepping out of line by saying that.
For the benefit of anyone who might think this refers to the field of mathematics (which is in a state of extraordinary upheaval), let me make clear that it is in fact about a literal field. When I last checked, I was delighted to see that some willows had gone from waist high to taller than me.
Ask arXiv to add a toggle to state whether chatbots can train on your work: math.mit.edu/~elmos/petit...
AI.MATH initiators With the AI.MATH initiative, we put forward draft positions on the future of mathematical research and mathematics degree programmes in the age of AI, alongside questions and possible answers. These are starting points for discussion. We also aim to make room for the uncertainties, hopes and concerns associated with this change. Received 23 […]
We also plan to be as open as possible about the recommendations we end up making, including explaining why we made them.
We are reading all of them, and while it is impossible to agree with all of them (since, unsurprisingly, a wide range of views are expressed), my sense is that the views of the committee are pretty representative, even if the people are not.
