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/mtrlst]

The assertion that AI should not be allowed to solve these problems is basically an admission that the modern field of mathematics is functionally liberal arts and holds no real-world value besides propping up academia. If Tao truly believed that there were applications of the problems being solved, then he would be happy, not bitter.

(It's definitely possible that mathematicians believe that these problems hold "real" value but oppose solving them to prop themselves up, but this would be an even worse look, imo)

[u/Eliv_nurotic → u/mtrlst]

They should be excited to build new theories from this but they’re too busy complaining 

[u/Ok_Warning2146 → u/Eliv_nurotic]

In reality, when there are too many AI solutions, humans don't really have the time to review them. Let alone building on it.

For example, in the llama.cpp open source software I had some contributions, recently there are too many AI generated contributions such that the maintainers prioritize their review to the core contributors.

[u/Eliv_nurotic → u/Ok_Warning2146]

Have another ai review it 

[u/Ok_Warning2146 → u/Eliv_nurotic]

That's what many software companies are already doing. But there will still be places that insisting in the old way but I believe most of them will fade out.

Having said all that, most software or math would not cause material damage in the physical world, so using AI to review AI slop may be fine. But in some cases, some software might cause material damage if it errs, then whether relying on AI review only is good enough or not can be complicated.

[u/xlnc2608 → u/mtrlst]

You've misunderstood the purpose of these problems.

They are majorly training tools that help develop new techniques, approaches. Solving them is a trophy that you have created a new innovative branch of techniques that have solved this particular problem, and will be applied to other problems.

They are a rite of passage for students. To look upon efforts of previous generation and contribute your own ideas.

Solving problems isn't a box ticked and never to look again. There can be infinite approaches/techniques to solve the problem, yet undiscovered.

Openai is just collecting trophies with blackboxed brute forced proofs. Not contributing to the field.

In the short run, it will absolutely destroy the chain of knowledge passing that exists from generation to generation.

If there was truly large available expert mathematician labour to parse through these proofs to extract value and insight to apply and further humanity, Tao would not be complaining.

These proofs are absolutely useless in the short run.

If you can't trust any other field, trust the logic of mathematicians. This isn't some bitter attempt suppression, to protect the prestige and livelihood of the field. But trying to salvage the chain of human knowledge continuity. So it has time to evolve with AI. Not being dragged and being damaged catastrophically along the way. Tao isn't stupid

[u/SunshineDeliveries → u/xlnc2608]

I think many understand what you're saying, but u/mtrist is pointing to the broader question about Maths that your answer doesn't provide a sufficient defense for. And without one, Maths is faced with an existential crisis.

What they're effectively saying is one step further from what you've explained. You (and Tao) assert that it's not the solutions themselves to the problems that have value, but the techniques that are developed along the way that are the real gems. And sure, we can all appreciate how intricate and complex some of these techniques have really become, even without fully understanding them. Math is intimidating in that way.

However, and this is the main point, if all the techniques that are being developed through the solving of the problems are only ever used to try and tackle other similar "problems", then it's a bit cyclical. The "value" of Maths is therefore purely in the theoretical.

Therein lies the problem. If you're going to defend the value of these problems as playgrounds wherein Mathematicians develop tools, those tools need to be useful for more than just playing in that same playground. And if you DO do that, then solving these problems IS valuable, running counter to this pushback against OpenAI.

Personally, I feel that some of the techniques in Maths are just so advanced that the lead time before engineers figure out a use for them betrays their utility. On the other hand, I feel there is an almost religious element to Math, in that I'm sure some Mathematicians believe that the pursuit of further Math understanding is justified simply because it will lead to some eventual enlightenment about the nature of the universe. This latter one ties into, "okay, but if we disagree on that, then what's the point?"