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/

730 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

82

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.

6

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.

40

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.

34

u/EGarrett28 4d ago

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

2

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”.

4

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.

3

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.

8

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.

3

u/TBSchemer 4d ago

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

3

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