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.
I'd like to add that we are very aware that we are not representative of the mathematical community, and for that reason we greatly value the approximately 500 views we have received via a form linked to here.
agmai.org
If you want a better idea of how the newly formed Advisory Group on Mathematics and AI sees its work, and in particular its immediate task of advising OpenAI on how best to release their results, I recommend a recent blog post of Martin Hairer.
proofsandprompts.com/2026/09/22/w...
So it really depends. For the Navier Stokes solution, yes, the AI proof provides no mathematical value, but it’s a strong proof of concept of how proofs could be developed by AI. There are tons of areas in economics, engineering, and physics where you often need a proof just for your result.
OpenAI claims to have proved 100 more big theorems. I urge all of you to fill out the form at https:// agmai.org/ and politely ask their board of nine "elite mathematicians" to initiate a more democratic approach to dealing with this potential flood of AI-proved results. https://www. theverge.com/ai-artificial-int elligence/999167/openai-elite-mathematicians-panel
So your position is that the thing solving millennium prize mathematics is not thinking? Sometimes old traditions don’t take into account new possibilities, and it’s a time of such possibilities
Tarik Aougab, Professor at Haverford College The premise for this post is simple: no matter what one thinks the central goals or purposes of mathematics are, the achievement of those goals by humans is impossible without ensuring that human beings have ample access and opportunity to study and think about mathematics. Of course, there are […]
So the claim about 'AI@ solving the hardest maths problems remains no more than internet bollocks. No verified claims and no prizes awarded. www.explainx.ai/blog/millenn...
Here's something AI can't do for you: enjoy On Proof and Progress in Mathematics by Bill Thurston.
I went to the first discussion at the Fields Institute about AI in # math . Some good comments but overall, not super inspiring. A lot of people on the panel seem to aim for some middle ground. Not enough focus on the ethics of it all for my taste. You can probably still sign up if you're interested in the remainder of the series (in-person and remote participation is possible): https://www. field…
[This is a guest post by Martin Hairer, cross-posted from Proofs and Prompts. — T.] There has been a lot of speculation regarding the “Advisory Group on Mathematics and Artifical Intelligence” agmai.org since it was announced on Monday. In this short blog post, I would like to explain in a bit more detail how the […]
And sure: a single proof to a single math problem can be explained away. Could be coincidence. But the pattern is creating multiple proofs of lang standing well known math problems is pretty striking and is evidence for (some!) intelligence.
I am by no means an expert, but it seems overly confident to me to assume that sustained human effort directed at a machine generated proof can do nothing to uncover novel–and transferable–insights about a problem.
I understand the fear around change, but change also opens up new opportunities
Martin Hairer Professor of Pure Mathematics at EPFL and Imperial College London There has been a lot of speculation regarding the “Advisory Group on Mathematics and Artifical Intelligence” agmai.org since it was announced on Monday. In this short blog post, I would like to explain in a bit more detail how the group works, what […]
So # OpenAI wants to be friends again? https:// openai.com/index/advisory-grou p-on-mathematics-and-ai/ It's hard to understand what this means. Everything is so slick and a bit meaningless. Maybe they used AI to write their statement? "Importantly, the group will not be responsible for advising us on how to pace our internal progress on mathematics." 🤔 Sounds to me like: "OK, we will solve your…
New math + AI developments in fluid mechanics. ~ Javier Gomez-Serrano. https:// youtu.be/TcEefrWrddA # AI4Math
Interestingly I just listened to a talk with a mathematician where he complained about how poorly written the (AI drafted) paper surrounding the Navier Stokes proof is
[This is a guest post by Antonio Auffinger. This blog post was initially written in a different file format and converted using AI. — T.] Despite writing papers in pure mathematics, much of my time in the past decade was spent talking (mostly listening, to be accurate) to biologists, computer scientists, and physicists. Theoretical physics […]
Just explained to a class of first years how academic publishing works and they were appropriately incredulous. "HOW much money do you make from publishing an article? Wait, you PAY money to publish an article??"
From the mouths of babes.
Marco Trombetti, Professor at Università degli Studi di Napoli Recent discussions around AI-generated mathematical papers have raised difficult questions about verification, attribution, authorship, and even about what it will mean to do mathematics in the coming years. I do not want to enter into the merits of any particular recent case. Instead, I would like to propose something […]
What is mathematics? Over the years I devoted a few dozen posts to the question “What is mathematics?”. Some posts in this category bring tears to my eyes like Christine Bjorner’s beautiful post: The Golden Room and the Golden Mountain, … Continue reading →
El miedo al lado oscuro de la IA en la comunidad matemática. ~ Anabel Forte Deltell. https:// theconversation.com/el-miedo-a l-lado-oscuro-de-la-ia-en-la-comunidad-matematica-292151 # AI4Math
“Furthermore, last Thursday, three mathematicians posted a proof of their own that showed that OpenAI’s method can never be extended to solve the full problem. In other words, the loophole will never be closed, barring some completely new idea.” # Math # NavierStokes # ai https://www. scientificamerican.com/article /did-openai-solve-the-wrong-navier-stokes-problem/
Tracking AI impact in math research: https:// mathurls.com/?q=AI%20%20 https:// epoch.ai/frontiermath https:// epoch.ai/data/arxiv?view=graph https:// epoch.ai/benchmarks/proofbench ?view=graph&tab=release-date https:// matharena.ai https:// benchlm.ai/benchmarks#category -math https:// lean-lang.org/eval/ https:// trishullab.github.io/PutnamBen ch/leaderboard https:// sorrydb.org https:// lea…
Stop trying to send the signal that you've “solved math”: this is impossible anyway, and you've only succeeding in making problem-solving as completely worthless as producing endless hours of AI slop videos.
This is impossible to argue against, for the same reason you can't construct a logical proof in math without a definition of terms and a couple of axioms.
Fine, so you don't have to have read all of the possible definitions but you have to have some conceptual understanding of what you mean
The experts interviewed by Scientific American didn't seem terribly impressed, and even commented on AI's inability to create new theory. That's the kind of thing you'd expect to see from creativity, no?
OpenAI blogs about a new advisory group for math and AI. On their new internal model:
"In addition to resolving the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize problem, this model has now resolved more than 100 long-standing open problems acros... https://www.manton.org/2026/09/21/openai-blogs-about-a-new.html
[This is a guest post by the Advisory Group on Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence. This blog post was initially written in a different file format and converted using AI. — T.] We would like to use this guest post to announce the creation of the Advisory Group on Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence hosted at the […]
OpenAI recently claimed to solve one of math’s biggest questions: the Navier-Stokes problem. But now three mathematicians have showed OpenAI’s work dodges the question rather than solving it.
What has actually been checked?
Exact Mathematics records literature search, human review, formal checking, text–formal-source correspondence, explanatory material, and public release separately.
exactmathematics.org/verification/
Official account for Exact Mathematics with AI — an independent research initiative for mathematical discovery, formal verification, and human understanding.
Updates will be posted selectively.
exactmathematics.org
Making the human that can tell whether a math proof is any good takes years of costly, slow work. Universities paid for that space and time with teaching and/or research grants. AI has repriced that pairing in ways the university and academics must face. kylesaunders.substack.com/p/the-mathem...
Seeing a Millennium Prize Problem get "solved" by AI isn't doing a lot to help my general sense of disillusionment.
It does make me wonder if I dodged a bullet by not entering academic maths, if it was just going to get tech-bro'd.
Jonny Evans, Reader at the University of Lancaster I don’t use LLMS. I’m not going to say that you shouldn’t; it’s a choice. I don’t see the advent of LLMs as an existential challenge to mathematicians. Why would we lose our fascination with deep truths, patterns and connections just because computers can help? That, too, […]
A AI-happy mathematician trawling literature to feed into the bot to write a "report" on errors has put Atiyah's late-years preprint with a flawed, claimed outline proof of RH in and written a "paper" spelling out in painful detail what the error is.
I can't even.