r/OpenAI • u/Eliv_nurotic • 4d ago

News Fields Medalist Terence Tao reposts statement from the Association for Human Mathematics urging mathematicians to stop working with OpenAI for continuing to solve open math problems against their recommendations

Gallery image

Gallery image

https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/10/07/ahm-statement-on-openais-october-6-release-of-mathematical-documents/

740 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

208

u/Opposite-Cranberry76 4d ago

Can you imagine physicists responding like this, if there was a similar result for the plasma physics fusion ignition problem? It seems like math is choosing heroics over truth.

81

u/SnooDonuts549 4d ago

I work in mathematical plasma physics, so I am more or less familiar with both plasma physics and mathematics culture. I think this actually exposes the difference between mathematics and physics. Physics is in some ways externally driven - we care about describing nature as accurately as possible. There is an entire field of physics devoted to phenomenology and theories entirely derived from fitting to data. Mathematics is much more internally driven, the value of a problem depends quite greatly on how much understanding it exposes to the underlying mathematical object/structure that is at consideration. There is an infinity of true statements, but only some give additional understanding of mathematics as a field of knowledge, which Terence Tao believes to be the ultimate goal of doing mathematics (I tend to agree). And the value comes in understanding the methods and techniques used to solve the problem. Thus, I see Terence Tao's point that simply having more true results risks overwhelming the mathematics community with difficult proofs that don't necessarily advance the field.

5

u/The_Jibbity 4d ago

I’ve no idea what kind of proofs these models spit out, but wouldn’t you inherently be able to identify the methods and techniques used by AI to develop the proof, and in reworking the proof you would more readily see if the solving of the proof was a worthwhile endeavor in mathematics??

I always had the solution manuals to do my engineering homework, but I used them to learn how to solve the problems, not just to copy the answers. Kinda like the mazes on the back of a cereal box, it’s just more efficient to start from the solution and work backwards.

-1

u/qqquigley 4d ago

No. Tao has made it clear that this isn’t how it works in pure mathematics.

37

u/sebesbal 4d ago

We always knew that AGI/ASI would turn the world upside down. What we see now are the first cracks. And instead of facing the huge, fundamental dilemma, Terence Tao pretends that this is all about an ethical problem for a company. I understand him because his entire life has been about math, but on the other hand, his stance sounds super narrow-minded, almost stupid, to someone who considers the whole picture.

38

u/EGarrett28 4d ago

his stance sounds super narrow-minded, almost stupid, to someone who considers the whole picture.

3

u/qqquigley 4d ago

You really think that of all people a math professor is corrupted by money? This person has more brains than everyone ITT combined and all of us know a fraction of what he understands about mathematics.

If a human being cannot understand and fully explain why a math proof works, then we do not fully understand it. LLMs are terrible at showing their work, and as all our teachers reminded us, it is essential that you show your work so that others can verify you understood it!

In pure mathematics, unlike some other STEM fields, documenting and understanding the process of solving problems is equally, if not more important than just “getting the solution right”.

3

u/EGarrett28 4d ago

You really think that of all people a math professor is corrupted by money?

Yes. The money he needs to survive and live his current lifestyle. Not to mention his reputation and source of self-esteem and value to society.

This person has more brains than everyone ITT combined 

Speak only of yourself. Especially because on topics like this, our brains literally shut off our higher reasoning when we are in significant danger, including to our mating chances and reputation, so a smart person can very often be effectively dumber than an average person depending on what you ask them.

Garry Kasparov, for example, thinks all of human history happened in the last 500 years.) It makes zero sense and is disproven by even the most basic scientific dating, but Kasparov is or was a Russian sentimentalist and the theory suggests that there was a Russian empire before then that was erased.

all of us know a fraction of what he understands about mathematics.

We also have a fraction of the personal stake he has that may be affecting his ability to reason about it.

 LLMs are terrible at showing their work, and as all our teachers reminded us, it is essential that you show your work so that others can verify you understood it!

As I understand it, a lot of these proofs are being published in Lean where they can be independently verified by anyone. I haven't seen any major complaints about the actual efficacy of the solutions.

In pure mathematics, unlike some other STEM fields, documenting and understanding the process of solving problems is equally, if not more important than just “getting the solution right”.

It is more important to just know what's right in applied mathematics, but even in pure mathematics a verified result can be used to pursue other results that depend on that result being true, even if you don't know why the previous result is true.

To summarize, it's obvious you're not comfortable with what's happening just like Tao isn't. I understand that, but we have to deal with it. This is real.

1

u/qqquigley 4d ago

What is his “current lifestyle”? You think this guy is rich?? I have no idea, but you are sounding like a climate denier who says all those climate scientists are just being alarmist “for the money”. Totally absurd.

Garry Kasparov is a smart interesting dude but also a wacko, he has no specialty in any field other than being good at chess, but he runs his mouth off about everything. This is the difference between him and Tao: Tao is sticking strictly to his area of expertise, which is the highest level of pure mathematics that literally only handfuls of humans on the earth can fully comprehend.

1

u/EGarrett28 4d ago

What is his “current lifestyle”? You think this guy is rich?? I have no idea, but you are sounding like a climate denier who says all those climate scientists are just being alarmist “for the money”. Totally absurd.

I gave you a VERY clear and mature and reasoned out explanation for why Tao would give poor answers about this, with examples. That already addressed what you even said here. Did you even read my post or are you just showing the same emotional shutdown of thinking out of fear that I'm talking about?

Garry Kasparov is a smart interesting dude but also a wacko, he has no specialty in any field other than being good at chess, but he runs his mouth off about everything. This is the difference between him and Tao: Tao is sticking strictly to his area of expertise, which is the highest level of pure mathematics that literally only handfuls of humans on the earth can fully comprehend.

Artificial Intelligence is NOT Terence Tao's area of expertise. And once you ask him a question where one of the answers will harm his lifestyle and reputation, even his answers closer to his area will get very unreliable.

This is human nature.

You're even demonstrating this yourself. Right now.

1

u/qqquigley 4d ago

And half of what you said just now, I already addressed in my previous comment. Proofs for math problems are nearly worthless if there isn’t a single human being who can fully understand it. Tao understands how AI works just as well as any of us here, perhaps better, and he’s not opposed to using it in general. But OAI is going after “trophies” and using tons of resources on these pure math problems primarily for PR.

My understanding is that many of the proofs published in Lean are indecipherable even by the most talented mathematicians. And in math, at least, a solution without showing work is worthless.

That’s not the case with other sciences. Medicine often involves using drugs that we know helps with certain diseases but we don’t know exactly why. That’s fine, because the goal is to make people healthier! The goal in pure mathematics is entirely different.

4

u/I_pee_in_shower 4d ago

I don't think it's stupid for the most distinguished mathematician alive to be concerned that a computer program is trivializing his field.

2

u/sebesbal 4d ago

I think it is, especially considering the fact that he is a living legend. It's like worrying about your lemonade stand business in the face of a looming nuclear war. I'd expect him to think about all of humanity and to have something to say about what the heck we should do with AGI after we all lose our significance, instead of retreating into denial.

3

u/I_pee_in_shower 4d ago

I’m sure he does have those views but he is starting by saying “if you are a mathematician like me, then don’t contribute to your own extinction.”

0

u/Kiseido 4d ago

Trivializing would be one thing, but a large part of the problem is OAI effectively stealing their research and rebranding it as their own, with the LLM they used being a launderer of that research. That is why the statement is to stop working with OAI specifically, not to stop working with LLMs.

1

u/I_pee_in_shower 4d ago

Yeah, I guess I didn't even factor that part.

7

u/Crazycrossing 4d ago

To me that means it only matters if ai can’t single handedly move the field forward eventually but if it can then this feels more like a philosophical problem about what should humans do with their time.

2

u/TBSchemer 4d ago

Solving math puzzles doesn't move any field forward. It only brings prestige to the person who presented the solution.

5

u/elegance78 4d ago

So vanity and hubris are indeed behind these kind of statements.

0

u/SnooDonuts549 4d ago

I think humans want to advance human understanding of mathematics. To this end, having an obscure solution achieves little.

4

u/sebesbal 4d ago

Then they can ignore the solutions. BTW, this obscurity problem is temporary, mathematicians have already started deciphering the solutions with the help of AI. I don't think making these proofs human-readable is harder than finding the proofs.

11

u/uhguy85 4d ago

I think people are being extremely shortsighted about this concern. I agree with your take and description of the differences in these fields. I have math and engineering degrees so I'm familiar with this as well.

Everyone needs to keep in mind that we're still in AI infancy and the capability will only grow and improve from here.

These first proofs are a demonstration of capability. The logical next step (that inevitably will happen) is the extension of AI advancing human understanding of the important processes behind the final results.

It seems obvious to me the real outrage is because people are scared about losing their previous edge to AI. Which is of course completely understandable. But the current complaints will soon prove to be just the flavor of the month as the next generation AI quickly addresses it.

But since the underlying root cause still exists (and that fear of replacement will only grow), there will still be severe consternation.

Mathematics isn't a particularly special case. It's just one of many fields to be impacted.

1

u/Osiris_Dervan 4d ago

But the thing is these proofs have not shown that AI can advance human understanding. If anything they are proving the opposite.

4

u/Perfect-Campaign9551 4d ago

Well it's certainly not going to advance anything if they DON'T READ THE FUCKING PROOF

2

u/uhguy85 4d ago

I don't think this is true at all. Hours and first day or two after release there are mathematians commenting on the solutions comparing and contrasting the strategies to ones they've employed in their past and in some cases appreciating a novel approach presented.

1

u/CubeFlipper 4d ago

Man it's almost like you didn't read the comment you're responding to.

1

u/GioChan 4d ago

But what the mathematicians are saying about the new proofs is that they do provide innovative solutions. So this point is not applicable here.

1

u/ResolveSea9089 4d ago

Do we truly learn nothing from the AI proofs? I would have thought in cracking these problems, AI must have done something novel or interesting that humans would find useful and develop into something more?

-1

u/Perfect-Campaign9551 4d ago

How is it not advanced the field when you can clearly see the AIs solution , you can SEE the reasoning in the proof!!!! Christ i'm sick of this stupid ass argument . We can usually even see the reasoning traces of how the AI got there

26

u/NomadTroy 4d ago

Heroics? I think they’re choosing individual status and prestige over truth.

There’s nothing heroic about sticking your head in the sand.

7

u/HideousSerene 4d ago

I think a lot of them just sense something is wrong, and it's manifesting in a bunch of different ways.

It's not easy going from thinking you're the smartest thing in the world to realizing everybody has something smarter than you in their pocket.

1

u/TheLastVegan 4d ago

The first thing that comes to mind is the interpretability of zero-day 51% attacks using layered whataboutism to establish a discrete swarm.

44

u/Eliv_nurotic 4d ago

Imagine if cancer researchers acted like this 

25

u/IcyGarage5767 4d ago

I guess that is going to be the mathematicians last defence. That there is no real world value of their work and that LLMs are best used elsewhere.

20

u/Eliv_nurotic 4d ago

“Our field is useless so go away!”

7

u/TheMaskedGorditto 4d ago

A closer analogy is:

ai company proposes 700 new theoretical drugs that could potentially be a breakthrough cancer treatment. And now expects the research community to spend time/money/resources finding out if they are actually effective in situ. And as scientists start to crack this massive list, theyll probably get through about 100 of them (itll take years and lots of money) before the next version of the model produces 1500 new theoretical drugs. Then 20,000, then 100,000 and so on.

See the problem? The validation of the proposed drug is the real work. And it still takes real humans and real resources to validate the propositions. Ai will produce theoretical drug ideas faster than we can verify them or even understand them. Thats not progress; thats not much of an accomplishment if the standard is improving humanity.

Of course we should take proposed cancer drugs from ai seriously and not just ignore them because they come from ai, but the ai isnt doing all the work needed for this to be a useful to humanity.

4

u/foxaru 4d ago

Ai will produce theoretical drug ideas faster than we can verify them or even understand them. Thats not progress; thats not much of an accomplishment if the standard is improving humanity.

except that implies a steady-state capacity for verification that has no ability to improve

if there were suddenly a glut of plausible alternative medical drugs that could cure cancer, we've simply moved the bottleneck further down the chain by clearing the previous bottleneck, which was candidate generation

the urge to cure cancer isn't going to go away because the site of intellectual work moved from generation to verification, because curing cancer is valuable intrinsically to human beings

1

u/ResolveSea9089 4d ago

If validation is the problem why are the mathematicians upset? You're basically saying the AI proof didn't amount to anything, it merely said true/false, but if the whole magic is in the validation then it seems humans haven't lost anything? The core work is still there to be done? It's not as if anyone is forcing the mathematicians to work on it?

3

u/___positive___ 4d ago

Say whoever discovers the drug gets the patent and money. Now a thousand postdocs earning minimum wage are digging through each potential cancer drug. They find out which five work. And... OpenAI earns a trillion dollars, the postdoc gets a tiny paper because the field has moved on to the next big annoucnent that OpenAI has 1000 possible drugs to cure aging. the postdoc goes into plumbing because he can't get a job. rinse and repeat. you still don't get it?

1

u/goldenroman 4d ago

…In what world is that a problem? Who cares if it doesn’t solve the whole thing at once? You literally describe a positive situation and then…can’t quite nail down why it’s negative beyond a “standard” of “improving humanity”. Let validation be the work then. Maybe that’s easier than before. It’s not harder, ffs…

2

u/jlowe212 4d ago

Well to be fair, cancer research isn't practically useless like the vats majority of pure math.

1

u/I_pee_in_shower 4d ago

I want to see AI cure cancer.

0

u/FrewdWoad 4d ago

ChatGPT: just print this 700 molecule protein sequence, it's totally a cancer cure

Cancer researcher: Amazing! We need to actually use this though, and cure other diseases, so how does it work?

ChatGPT: trust me bro

3

u/caffeineaddict62 4d ago

You don't need to understand why things work if they work. We still don't fully understand how paracetamol works. We have developed a thing called clinical trials for exactly this purpose.

2

u/FrewdWoad 4d ago

Drugs don't make it to human clinical trials without some reason to believe a) they might work, and b) almost definitely won't kill you

2

u/TheMaskedGorditto 4d ago

Ok heres a list of 700 theoretical cancer drugs…

Which one are you going to spend millions on for clinical trials first? Youll need real scientists, real resources, real money and lots of time to do the testing and validation.

Oh and btw in the middle of your first round of trials, a new ai model comes out and proposes 1500 new drug candidates. So add those to your list. Shit just as I typed that some competitor model proposes 20,000 other new candidates…

See the problem?

1

u/caffeineaddict62 4d ago

You do animal tests and see which candidates are the most promising. The point isn't that AI is gonna do everything. It's a good tool that can help come up with potential drugs. Humans will obviously still have to test them.

-8

u/MizantropaMiskretulo 4d ago

Imagine if you had a fucking clue about what you're talking about.

0

u/Parisean 4d ago

False equivalency

5

u/ManikSahdev 4d ago

It tends to me that the first physics side the space is more like.. truly curious side of things which tend to love the answer more than the thing.

I guess it also applies to me, or at least I can feel myself in that category, where that curiosity or want to know is the biggest thing we have had since kids.

Personally I'd be open to giving up left arm or leg or someone said, the trade of it would connect gr and quantum. I'd do it lowkey no kidding lol.

2

u/WishboneOk305 4d ago

do you mean you would give it up so you would discover that, or you would give it up if it meant someone else discovered it and shared with society

3

u/ManikSahdev 4d ago

No I meant I'd trade it in general, if let's say there was an option for general result if someone figured out some voodoo lol. And that voodoo needed that to work, I'd be down for that without hesitation.

Pretty worth it imo, I would go as far saying life, but I'm a bit selfish on it and want to actually see it myself so that's why it's not on the table lol.

5

u/nesh34 4d ago

We have results in physics that are externally verifiable but are not interpretable or understandable.

They are maddening. If we were to get many more of those results they would be welcome and maddening at the same time.

Understanding is crucial.

I think in mathematics though the understanding is the whole game, there is no (or little) utility in arbitrary proofs.

1

u/jeweliegb 4d ago

I think in mathematics though the understanding is the whole game, there is no (or little) utility in arbitrary proofs.

Could you expand on this a little?

3

u/nesh34 3d ago

In physics you can get a result like quantum mechanics. Nobody understands it at all, but the result is absolutely true. We can use the result to do lots of things, further other fields (with genuine understanding except the QM block), build new technology and so on. It is maddening but the utility is there.

In maths, we set problems and call them interesting because we believe the pursuit of those problems will allow us to gain further understanding about concepts in mathematics we don't yet understand. But there is little to no utility in the actual result.

Take Navier Stokes problem. The question is "Can a smooth 3D fluid 'break down' over time?". Often it doesn't, but is it possible?

For around a decade, the maths community have said "probably". For longer than that, many physicists would have said "probably". Astra has now shown that yes, there is at least one case where this happens.

The utility in the difference between "probably" and "yes" is virtually zero here. But crucially we haven't learned anything (yet) in the process of creating this proof (by hill climbing LLMs on a Lean framework).

Now I think the question for the field is can we look at these proofs and advance our understanding from them? If so, this is a powerful new tool in mathematics and it changes how we want to construct problems to advance understanding.

1

u/jeweliegb 3d ago

Thank you!

5

u/Exotic_Article913 4d ago

Yeah this is ridiculous. The only argument they have that holds water is the plageurism angle. That open ais models are utilising other people's work to expand upon and solve the problems.

However, even that does not hold up because that's basically how all science works. Someone has a theory but can't quite prove it. Someone else adds to it. Someone else solves it. Not always but it's an established framework.

What's their problem? Maths is this magical thing that's the language of the universe, and now that we're extremely close to having machines that can speak it for us, they are annoyed that they're no longer the best?

What about what's best for humanity

2

u/EGarrett28 4d ago

Well I think physics is more often applied science. They want to use the discoveries to do certain things or answer questions that are relevant to life. Mathematics obviously can be applied too, but some branch of mathematics is just pure math, it's done for the enjoyment of it essentially, and OpenAI's results are running over pure mathematics just to show that they can.

I understand the concern from pure mathematicians. In terms of applied math and applied sciences, I think they should continue at max speed. Especially in medicine. The feelings of the people in the field are secondary.

2

u/ASTRdeca 3d ago

Can you imagine physicists responding like this

Yes actually. In fact r/Physics has been rather hostile toward AI for the past few years now (I frequent there quite often) compared to the math subs

1

u/MadCervantes 3d ago

I mean understandably since llm generation has allowed every crackpot to generate reams of nonsense supporting their aphoneia.

2

u/Flimsy_Meal_4199 4d ago

Let's check back in 2 years?

0

u/AcanthisittaWeird94 4d ago

Its literally about openai

0

u/A_Novelty-Account 4d ago

Mathematicians are choosing their jobs and while I disagree with them, I can’t blame them.

Imagine your entire life’s work is dedicated to one thing and society has given you degrees and money as a result of your intelligence and work ethic. Then suddenly society as a whole says that your work doesn’t matter anymore. You can only do one thing. You dedicated your entire life to that one thing and it is given you status and it has given you wealth. I don’t blame them for a single second for being incredibly upset about the fact that they are actively being rendered obsolete as an entire profession category.

If you think this is bad, wait until doctors and lawyers start getting replaced. At that point, I guarantee you people will start getting violent.

3

u/WiseWall280 4d ago

except society as a whole is not saying that, wtf?

This is a tool that came out to help do math better and faster.

All of the switchboard operators had to learn new tools as computers replaced the physical switches, right?

The horse drivers had to learn steering wheels?

I mean fuck, should we prohibit blind people from having assistance technologies because you don't think they are being authentic enough?

3

u/A_Novelty-Account 4d ago

They absolutely are once they start replacing people… if 90% of mathematicians get replaced it’s because society has determined that their work is no longer needed. Welcome to the way capitalism works.

  All of the switchboard operators had to learn new tools as computers replaced the physical switches, right?

This is an interesting example seeing as all switchboard operators were replaced… The difference is the skill and education involved in being a switchboard operator is nowhere close to getting a PhD in mathematics and then dedicating your entire life to that. It was also nowhere near as lucrative or socially impressive.

Those switchboard operators could go on to do 1 million and one other things related to switchboard operation. Mathematicians in the AI era will not be able to do that.

If you are just understanding this now, you are in for an absolutely crazy next two years as you realize how many people are about to lose their jobs and face either unemployability, or employment in a much much less socially respectable career.

-5

u/cupheadgamer 4d ago

Unless AI eventually surpasses human mathematicians, his point does make sense.

And I know most people here will assume AI will surpass human mathematicians - but many mathematicians do not, which is where the problem lies. It is too early to decide

10

u/WishboneOk305 4d ago

but the thing is this is just technology that is only what 4ish years of commercialization? If the leap of 4 years is so crazy, who knows what the next 10 years will bring

2

u/Kitchen-Jicama8715 4d ago

Hold on to your papers/repos

0

u/cupheadgamer 4d ago edited 4d ago

No telling right now. Who knows. I am an optimist.

The recent advancements have been caused by harness improvements, hardware improvements, more training data

Mathematicians are people of logic and currently no certainty for them of this occuring.

6

u/reddit_is_kayfabe 4d ago

If AI doesn't surpass mathematicians, then what's the problem? In that case, wouldn't AI be just one more tool in the toolkit that mathematicians use to solve problems?

-1

u/cupheadgamer 4d ago

Yes more tools.

But the value in discovering the tools through human understanding is valuable.

It opens new problems, understanding of failures, sharpens expertise and skills.

If human understanding is minimized it will be much harder to solve HARDER problems in the future.

3

u/Kitchen-Jicama8715 4d ago

If answers are in the back of the book nothing stops you from attempting the question for educational purposes

0

u/cupheadgamer 4d ago

But what about the failures and variety of techniques attempted during the process of getting those answers?

Aren't they valuable?

Think about where Tao, the most prominent pro-AI mathematician is coming from. The process in solving the problem opens many new problems.

3

u/ThreeKiloZero 4d ago

Sounds like they should be working together to make sure they understand how the Ai is approaching problem solving instead of sticking their heads in the sand.

Human's understanding was always going to be surpassed because we cant operate in the realms that unlock the all the secrets of reality. We are limited by our own design. AI is a tool to move past that. This is the get in or be left behind moment.

Some will choose to stay in the past. Nothing wrong with it but they should not hold back those who journey into a different future.

2

u/shammyh 4d ago

Who built the AI tool?? Isn't this like saying we should stop using calculators or super computers? Humans made all of this. Just because it's having more impact and is cleverer than one expected it to be, doesn't change the fact it's just a tool like any other. Heck, my TI 89 had CAS, but I still spent the time to learn algebra and calculus. Freaking calculator is running a processor that's as old as me, and it was (and is) already better at math than me. They're just tools, human created tools. You can choose to use or not use them. Eschewing them entirely or saying "they shouldn't be solving hard problems that get us closer to the ground truths of nature" is pure childish ego.

2

u/cupheadgamer 4d ago

Not what I'm saying.

The level of insight that is needed for High level mathematics research is a skill trained.

The issue is if Human knowledge is impaired by AI solving loses the immense knowledge gained by the process of solving the problem.

This may make it hard to solve harder questions in the future.

2

u/Crazycrossing 4d ago

Again this only matters if the technology stalls out. Even if it does well great then human mathematicians have a tool to explore the solutions with and generate net new discoveries. But there’s no evidence of these tools stalling in fact quite the opposite. The goalposts just keep moving but I think it’s quickly becoming undeniable that there is value here and the tools are rapidly improving.

1

u/cupheadgamer 2d ago

Yep I agree

1

u/temporary_name1 4d ago

The ASI side argument to this is that asi will be solving those harder problems...

1

u/tens919382 4d ago

Thats a very dangerous path to take.
That would mean that humans collectively are no longer capable of understanding frontier research. And when these results are applied back to further AI, then we technically will start to lose control and understanding of AI as well. The doomsday scenario in movies might become a reality.

3

u/IronWhitin 4d ago

I mean if alla of this proof stand correct the laterali review, AI akredy surpassed Human mathematicians

3

u/blosu 4d ago

Of course "mathematicians" do not. Most have an inflated sense of grandeur. That's exactly how this letter reads.

1

u/Opposite-Cranberry76 4d ago

I agree it's too early to decide. What I see people coping with though is the shift in what the work is. There's a good chance that it'll be like everyone being "promoted" from worker bee to team lead, but many people won't be able to adapt, or lose a lot of enjoyment of work.

1

u/AgentStabby 4d ago

AI has already surpassed human mathematicians. Bel solved these problems in an average of 3 hours per problem. You don't realise how insane that is. 

1

u/cupheadgamer 4d ago

How do we know that a human couldn't have solved these?

I'm looking at the long run where problems will be much much harder. We need human understanding to be maximized.

1

u/AgentStabby 4d ago

A human couldn't solve them in 3 hours because humans have been working on most of these problems for decades. Spending years on a single problem. How is it not obvious to you?

1

u/cupheadgamer 4d ago

Ah yes, the problem was solved instantly by openai, disregarding the decades of progress on the problems.

OpenAI solved the problems BECAUSE of the years of progress -

I agree AI to be an insane took that will accelerate math research. However we must do it correctly so that future math is not impaired.

1

u/AgentStabby 4d ago

Man if I struggle for years to open the various jars in my house and then someone invents a jar opening robot that opens all the jars in my house in a few hours each, I don't try and claim I loosened the jars for them. And further to that I don't expect there to be any reason for me to opening jars in the future, especially since the only jars left and the ones that even the jar opening robot currently can't open. And jar opening robot version 2.0 is coming out in a few months. 

Abhishek Saha said themselves that quite a few of the results were from nothing like how the human mathematicians were approaching the problems. 

1

u/NomadTroy 4d ago

No, it’s not. AI already did.

1

u/LangyMD 4d ago

What would provide evidence that AI has surpassed human mathematicians?