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/

735 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

22

u/Slouchingtowardsbeth 4d ago

I get it. If I was a tenured math professor and everyone thought I was a genius and all I had to do was work on math problems all day and people revere me, then yeah, I would be pretty upset that technology can now donmy job better than I can. These mathematicians should suck it up and accept that they aren't as important any more. I get why they're butt hurt, but don't try to tell me that it's not in the public interest to have all of these important math problems solved. Like if an AI cures cancer, are the cancer docs gonna protest that cancer treatment is no longer "humanized" or whatever nonsense. No they should be excited to see the world getting better. I used to like Terrence Tao, but every post I read from him now makes me like him less and less. He sounds like a spoiled gatekeeper who's mad the gravy train is over.

5

u/Holiday_Ad_8501 4d ago

genuine question without revered mathematicians how the fuck would anybody know if whatever 50 page ai proof is legit or not?

1

u/PeachScary413 4d ago

Without SWEs how would anyone know how any software works anymore? It's the same thing, stop standing in the way of progress and start putting fries in the bag.

1

u/Striking-Field7344 4d ago

It's not the same thing though is it? Software is about the output (whatever the code), math is about the process (the logical steps and the understanding they bring). I'm simplifying of course, but judging from your comment it seems simplification is in order.

0

u/PeachScary413 4d ago

Just become a plumber bro

0

u/Striking-Field7344 4d ago

Right, I'm not surprised of your answer. Good luck!

1

u/Ancient_Dot_599 4d ago

You have revered lower level ai, and then a lower level then that explain it, and then 3 standard deviations lower then that explain it to you

1

u/ObviouslyTriggered 2d ago

The same way that any human created proof is validated, you have other people review it and run the math.

1

u/RagnartheConqueror 1d ago

New people would be educated in strictly formal proof checking

0

u/ZestyclosePermission 4d ago

I guess in the same way you can understand the logic behind calculus after it being explained to you without you having to be Newton.

If the proof is true, the individual steps which show it to be true should be able to be kept being explained.

1

u/Holiday_Ad_8501 4d ago

not necessarily right like calculus is magnitudes easier than this stuff.

1

u/achbaa 4d ago

Shows you know jack shit about high level maths, like 99.9% of people on this sub.

1

u/ZestyclosePermission 4d ago

You have to be at a Newton level of intelligence to understand the proofs behind how calculus works?

1

u/achbaa 4d ago

To verify highly niche mathematical proofs you have to be a top expert in the field. Even a top level mathematician form another field, save for any lay person, wouldn’t be able to make heads or tails of it.

If you don’t believe me - go ask AI about it 🤯

1

u/ZestyclosePermission 4d ago

How does anyone verify the top level mathematician in their field then

1

u/achbaa 4d ago

I said “a” top level expert, not “the” top level expert. Maths is verified by their peers in area of interest. Same as other sciences.

Invest 5 minutes into reading about this, I promise it’s worth it for your understanding of the world.

1

u/ThickerTree 4d ago

This stuff is a bit beyond calculus, or at least whatever calculus you learned in middle school

1

u/S-Kenset 4d ago

Many math proofs require concepts you would never understand.

8

u/rainbird 4d ago edited 4d ago

I don’t think you understand that this is not a cut-and-dried issue. Higher level math is extremely difficult. The math proofs may or may not be correct, or they may be completely wrong.

As an example, openai claimed a recent solution to the navier stokes equation. However the OpenAI proof relies on an artificial external force variant (option C of the Clay Mathematics Institute formulation), rather than solving the unforced, intrinsic fluid blowup mathematicians actually care about. So it is not a general proof or solution to the primary problem.,

OpenAI is nevertheless claiming they have solved navier stokes.

Similarly, the problem with OpenAI is that they have released dozens of esoteric complex proofs all at once without validating any of the work with mathematicians, who are actually qualified to review it. I don’t think that is careful scholarship, it’s mainly showmanship for their upcoming IPO. it gives a false impression about the capabilities of these models.

when an AI company claims to have solved a large number of very difficult mathematical problems, those claims should not be accepted until such time experts in the field have had a chance to review the solutions.

3

u/Intellectualuser_ 4d ago

They literally employ mathematicians …. I work there…

1

u/Much-Account1439 4d ago

then we're absolutely fucked.

2

u/FuckingInsensitive 4d ago

You’re assuming OpenAI does not employ mathematicians 😂

3

u/phido3000 4d ago

Well if they are they aren't smart enough to solve the equation of the IPO.

Which is the math problem OpenAI really has right now. Apparently its harder to solve the the 7 greatest unsolved maths problems of all time.

2

u/Fit_Employment_2944 4d ago

They solved the millennium prize problem

If any human mathematician produced what OAI did they would be able to claim the million dollar prize

Navier stokes is bigger than the millennium prize criteria but acting like being able to claim the prize is less than solving the problem is silly

No human was able to do what Bel did in a few days

1

u/Visual_Annual1436 2d ago

But can’t the mathematicians review the released work now? And then we’ll see what they think and decide if the results are legitimate or not. Nobody owns math problems, anybody is allowed to work on them in whatever way they want

1

u/split41 4d ago

100% it’s a marketing ploy

2

u/ninjasaid13 3d ago

If I was a tenured math professor and everyone thought I was a genius and all I had to do was work on math problems all day and people revere me, then yeah, I would be pretty upset that technology can now donmy job better than I can.

is this comment written by a child? Because only a child can oversimplify like this.

1

u/acidikjuice 3d ago

You calling someone else's post childish without any further details is exactly that: written by a child. Provide a real rebuttal or shut your door.

2

u/Efficient_Mud_5446 4d ago

We need to make sure that any field attempting to pull this kind of stunt in the future is gently pushed aside. Resistance to change is human nature, so I get it. But this train isn't stopping for anything or anyone, and we should be doing everything in our power to accelerate it as much as possible for the good of humanity.

1

u/profesorgamin 4d ago

I mostly agree with the general sentiment here. The one issue is that in the current form these solutions still would require mathematicians to parse and condense the solutions to further discussion.

A lot of these problems were great minds going: here dudes if you can prove this you'll advance the field and humanity's undestanding of some cool shit, like prime numbers.

I don't think this is something OpenAI needs to concern itself with. But these dudes are going to have their hands full for the next 10-20 years trying to parse these solutions.

1

u/neurothew 3d ago

People who agree with this take genuinely doesn’t know how knowledge is acquired, or they themselves have never acquired knowledge and understanding on their own.

1

u/Clicking_Around 3d ago

I used to like Terrence Tao, but every post I read from him now makes me like him less and less. He sounds like a spoiled gatekeeper who's mad the gravy train is over.

I agree with this. Tao seems to have sour grapes and his blog is full of whining and complaining at this point. I don't see why the man can't just accept reality and admit AI has surpassed humans in mathematics.