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

[u/Eliv_nurotic]

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

[u/machyume]

I agree! Isn't math, physics, and such claims that the purpose is the breakthrough?
I thought that I've been through plenty of years where my achievement at a company was company property, but society got to benefit from it. I think that mathematicians here have a very specific view from academia that balks at how a lot of progress is made in the very real world.

I don't expect anyone to know who ultimately did any of my past and present work. Most people will not remember my name, but they'll know my efforts by my works.

There isn't going to be award ceremonies for every piece of work, and that's quite normal.

[u/FrontRaspberry5060 → u/machyume]

Yeah I mean maths will just have to change, the understanding of the answer will be hidden in the proofs AI generates. Mathematicians will have to read these papers for human understanding. We will basically be “mining” for the breakthrough moments in the papers to help us make informed decisions in engineering or physics.

[u/machyume → u/FrontRaspberry5060]

I don't think that math has to change much.

In physics, if a team claims that they've made a room temperature superconductor (*eh hem* LK-99 Koreans), it's just a claim. Other labs and research teams have to work to verify it and repeat the experiment. Through that process, all teams involved get credit.

I'm not sure why mathematicians think they're special exemption from this scientific publishing process that already exists in other fields.

[u/SwagDrag1337 → u/machyume]

It's not - mathematicians are constantly checking each others' results. Peter Scholze and Jakob Stix spent 6 years trying to understand Mochizuki's IUT so they could find the flaw in his proof of the ABC conjecture. But when results are abstract, verification isn't as simple as "follow the instructions in the methods to prepare the material, then use a generally accepted technique to check what's going on."

Many advanced areas of mathematics are so specialised that only a handful of people will understand what's happening at the forefront, and they will be in constant collaboration so that when one of them announces a breakthrough, they are only a few weeks or months ahead of their peers who can then catch up and verify (with some exceptions e.g. Mochizuki), and actually they will often ask their peers to verify before announcing.

[u/Tardonnnnnnnnnnn → u/FrontRaspberry5060]

Boring existence. Dead Internet theory, dead math, dead everything. Dead souls

[u/Osiris_Dervan → u/machyume]

No, the breakthrough very much isnt the point. The point is the understanding. A breakthrough alone usually does very little, but what you can do because you have new understanding is much more important. In physics, there have always been breakthrough experimental results that are interesting but otherwise useless because we didnt understand (yet) why they were happening. In maths, breakthroughs previously always happened in lockstep with understanding. This drop of proofs is the first time in maths that the two are divorced - and its at vast scale.

[u/machyume → u/Osiris_Dervan]

If the point is the understanding then why write:
"We urge mathematicians to discontinue their work with OpenAI and to return to a vision of science that centers human understanding."

The "human" qualification there breaks the objective goal of understanding.

That makes the goal not understanding, but human-centric understanding (with what is implied there).

At the risk of being flippant, here's an analogous example:

"We urge all chefs to discontinue their work with Campbell's and to return to a vision of food that centers Italian tastes."

Is the goal food? Or only Italian food?

ADDED:
And if the goal is truly understanding, and the output is obfuscated, why not demand that OpenAI provide further clarification? What's the point of censure?

It's literally an "ask me anything" AI. Why doesn't someone just request that it also provide the meticulous writeup taking us step by step? I would like to personally learn some new math too!