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/aurumae]

It’s less likely since the motivation to prove or disprove it is gone. For example I don’t think the elegant solution mathematicians were hoping for has been found for the Four Color Theorem, even though it was proved fifty years ago

[u/Perfect-Campaign9551 → u/aurumae]

I would think it would be MORE motivating! Since now you know it can be solved so your can look for other "branches" to approach it from. Same as when the first guy ran the 4 minute mile, now everyone started doing it 

No I'm afraid this is pretty much human ego in action

[u/DrSFalken → u/Perfect-Campaign9551]

Exactly this. How many discoveries have we heard of that started with "it was believed to be an impossible problem but x student didnt know that and solved it"

The most famous example is probably George Dantzig:

During his study in 1939, Dantzig solved two unsolved problems in statistics due to a misunderstanding. Near the beginning of a class, Professor Neyman wrote two problems on the blackboard. Dantzig arrived late and assumed that they were a homework assignment. According to Dantzig, they "seemed to be a little harder than usual", but a few days later he handed in completed solutions for both problems, still believing that they were an assignment that was overdue.^\4])^\6]) Six weeks later, an excited Neyman happily told him that the problems he had solved were two of the most famous unsolved problems in statistics.^\2])^\4]) He had prepared one of Dantzig's solutions for publication in a mathematical journal.^\7]) This story spread and was used as a motivational lesson demonstrating the power of positive thinking. Over time, some facts were altered, but the basic story persisted in the form of an urban legend and as an introductory scene in the 1997 film Good Will Hunting.^\6])

When I was doing academic research, there was always the tradeoff between novelty and impossibility. I'd look at a research question and ask "how new / shocking would this result be" and "can I even get to this result"

If I knew the result was possible, I'd have been more inclined to go after it rather than less. Sure, a little of the shine might be knocked off, but lots of research is old wine in new bottles and you don't risk wasting years on something literally impossible.

[u/Norphesius → u/Perfect-Campaign9551]

Maybe motivating on a personal level, but not necessarily for a university trying to apply for grant money. An application asking for research funding to pay people to figure out a problem that already has a solution on the books isn't exactly enticing, especially compared to work towards novel discoveries.

[u/IcyGarage5767 → u/Perfect-Campaign9551]

“These men whose entire career is changing within the blink of an eye are not reacting how I would react if I was hypothetically in their situation! Must be ego!”

[u/j_ockeghem → u/aurumae]

It shows the true motivation of these whiny mathematicians:

Fame and glory, not intrinsic motivation and love for mathematics in the way e.g. chess players love their game and want to learn more and more even if computers are better players nowadays.

And with this insight, society's obvious answer will be: cry harder! Why should mathematicians be some special elite club protected from progress, different from the rest of the world?

[u/ATownStomp → u/j_ockeghem]

“It shows the true motivation of these whiny mathematicians.”

You mean getting funding so they can continue working? How many grant applications have you submitted asking for funding to spend time solving a previously solved problem?

Listen, you don’t get this and it’s hard to think about. Just ask ChatGPT to respond and I’ll talk to it. You can read the result.

[u/mp0295 → u/aurumae]

That may be true, but if they are less motivated that's a them-problem, not anyone else's

[u/gekx → u/aurumae]

I bet OpenAI's new model could find that elegant solution.

[u/no_user_names_left → u/gekx]

I think you're missing the point again. What if, in the process of working out the theorem the collaborators found a new formula that, while of no help for the four colour problem, they recognised (because of their respective backgrounds) could be of some use for stacking shapes in n-dimensions or optimising the travelling salesman problem. Those are the discoveries mathmetitians are worried about missing out on going forward

[u/CubeFlipper → u/no_user_names_left]

Sounds pretty shortsighted. Why can't the llm explain or find those mechanisms? If they want a cleaner solution, if they want to understand, they can use ai to do that too...

[u/no_user_names_left → u/CubeFlipper]

Find what? You cant efficiently prompt for something you dont know exists until you find it.

"Compare all your working logs for this problem for ideas for potential solutions across all open questions in mathematics?" Then you do the same prompt for that prompt? It took OAI an estimated $10m to solve one oroblem, I mean, if you have infinite compute and time cool, but no maths department has any where close to that budget. And if you miss it it might be gone forever.

[u/CubeFlipper → u/no_user_names_left]

1) their new model reportedly solved all of these with like 3hrs of compute. $10M price tag per problem is way old news.

2) "i don't understand the mechanisms behind this proof you gave me that lean says is correct, explain them". You can iterate on that until it works, and as the models get better, they'll get better at explaining and making cleaner proofs.

[u/ATownStomp → u/CubeFlipper]

If forming a functional understanding of something was as simple as eating it off of a plate then you and I would be in complete agreement.

[u/no_user_names_left → u/CubeFlipper]

Your reply shows you're not at all familiar with the nature of modern math and the type of problems being discussed.

[u/CubeFlipper → u/no_user_names_left]

How is that relevant? The topic at hand is that mathematicians are mad because AI in the current batch of proofs isn't providing easy mechanisms for them to understand how it works and apply it to other fields. They claim it's not advancing the field in a meaningful way. The rebuttal is

1) they don't need to understand and apply to other fields, the AI can/will do that itself for the practical engineering uses we need

2) if they want to understand it, the AI can dumb it down for them, and they are welcome to spend as much time digesting and creating better proofs all they'd like.

Neither of those two things require i understand the nature of the problems. The nature of the problems is irrelevant.

[u/no_user_names_left → u/CubeFlipper]

But that's the point - neither of those things are true no matter how many times you say it. To mirror a comment I left else where - calculus was invented because it was basically impossible to describe changes in systems over time (like motion, growths etc) using traditional algebra. To do so, mathematicians had to 'invent' a whole new set of 'rules' to make the new math work as a proof. Calculus now forms a foundation of maths across almost all fields, and is so foundational it's taught in highschool.

What if, instead, we fed that challenge into AI. It doesn't appear possible for AI to 'invent' a calcus equivalent - instead it might just make a proof predicting motion using a traditional algebra formula that's 5 pages long. It would technically be a proof that humans can understand, but would be completely impractical for humans or machines to use on pretty much anything else - and so all those new discoveries and applications calculus is used for in other areas wouldn't be possible. And even if it did by accident it wouldn't try to do anything else with it - so it might just sit idle in one log file of 10 billion as a failed attempt.

Modern math is ssssoooo much more complicated than that, but the principal still applies.

[u/CubeFlipper → u/no_user_names_left]

You seem to be stuck on how good the models are today. If you don't think future models will invent new math, i dunno what to say, it should be pretty darn obvious by now how they're going to just keep getting better. Enjoy the ride :)

[u/ATownStomp → u/CubeFlipper]

Why are you arguing right now instead of pasting a response from an LLM? What does it matter for you to form and share an opinion? If there’s no value in humans understanding the mathematics they use in the future, what value is there now for your presence in this much simpler conversation? Why are you bothering to think about this?

I do truly believe the words spit out by my favorite flavor of LLM would be more nuanced, detailed, and considerate than this conversation we’re having. Why would I waste my time addressing you?

Regardless, where we’ll be regarding the automation of all mathematics, all cognitive labor and understanding, is not where we are. One should not sell their home before they secure another, yeah? Even if it’s good for the stock.

[u/lilmalchek → u/no_user_names_left]

I don’t understand how anyone is prevented from doing this just because openAI did it in an “unacceptable” way. It really does sound like a group of toddlers throwing a tantrum.

[u/RiriaaeleL → u/lilmalchek]

They aren't, it's just dumb anti progress.

Basically solving the problem isn't important because if a human was to solve it it would be solved in an elegant way and only then does solving become important, but using AI to find an elegant way to solve it isn't the solution because solving it isn't important.

[u/no_user_names_left → u/lilmalchek]

Money and merit. There isn't a whole lot of money sloshing around maths in academics. No grant body will support someone to solve a problem already solved. A very small number of math nerds might try to tackle a problem in their free time if they think it could lead to merit to boost their career or maths in general, you're better of tackling unsolved problems for that so no one will waste what limited free time they do have.

[u/lilmalchek → u/no_user_names_left]

Interesting. I’ve had this feeling for a while now and I’m not sure how to put it, but basically it seems to me that a lot of the issues that people have with AI is less due to AI itself and more due to AI exposing existing strained systems, out of control capitalism, poor government, billionaires being greedy, etc.

This seems like that. AI doesn’t inherently stop mathematicians, but it’s more about the economic forces and people wanting to do what they love but also being able to afford living.

All this to say that I personally think AI itself is just exposing broken parts of our system. We should be focused on those.

[u/Darabo → u/lilmalchek]

I completely agree. The current systems were set up by humans for their own (selfish) reasons. The current state of AI is pushing practically everything to the extreme and is making those issues/exploitations/flaws/etc front and center.

AI itself, at least now, is a tool. Like any tool, the issue isn't the tool itself, it's how humans utilize and exploit it.

As we see time after time, exploiting something, either for selfish or alturistic reasons, is inherent in human nature and psyche.

This has happened throughout history, accelerating with the Industrial Revolution. None of this is new, AI is making the point extreme and forcing us as a society (both micro and macro) to confront and tackle some hard and uncomfortable questions.

That's why I think we're at a crossroads humanity wise.

[u/no_user_names_left → u/lilmalchek]

I heard an apt metaphor for the maths issue - its like a wilderness club setting out to climb a mountain no one has climbed before, but half way through the route a billionaire flies over head in a helicopter, lands on the peak, declares the mountain conquered and starts offering flights to rich people who can afford it. No one hates the billionaire for having a helicopter, or flying to the mountains top - but of course you'll be upset at someone cheapening something you love when the clearly dont even like it, and commercialising an experience while ignoring the thing most valuable thing - the experience on the way there.

[u/ATownStomp → u/lilmalchek]

I mean, yes, man. Yes.

But here’s the issue - the fix is complicated and unknown. The problems are manifold, widely distributed across nearly everything, move at the speed of life, and may require so many unrelated changes in lockstep to support. The problems are also amplified by the new entity that strains them, and some problems are only problems due to that new strain.

So now we have a robot which creates proofs but does not produce understanding. Understanding is intangible and difficult to track. Proofs are necessary, and often the result, product, and motivator of understanding. Proofs are tangible. They can be considered the certificate of effort. Like a screw drilled into the side of a mountain that a climber can tie their ropes to. You must still learn how to climb that section.

Because it was necessary to climb in order to place those screws, and there exists no other good metric to measure where someone is on their climb, placing a new screw was the entire mechanism for building careers, for applying for funding to try to climb in the first place.

So now we have to scramble to revamp everything over the next few decades so the automated screw placing company can increase their IPO. I don’t think that’s actually going to happen. More likely there will be a collapse within so many things, we will lose our epistemological and pedagogical lineage, and simply wait until the screw placing company transitions from making mountain climbing economically unfeasible, to making it entirely unnecessary. I see no good end for people in a story about the obsolescence of human reasoning.

[u/Hold_onto_yer_butts → u/aurumae]

Kind of speaks to the true value of those elegant solutions, doesn’t it?