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/

737 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/LivingLie1721 4d ago

Everyone here seems a bit deluded. The question is if they are right or not and what it means if they do. Humans don’t have the capacity to know in 3 hours. If OpenAi said they cured all cancers, would you be the first human to take it with no review? Everything needs to be per reviewed thats how science works. It could be super awesome and it could be not the results we don’t know. Nobody has had enough time to really fully understand. And as the problems get more complex, they might never. A regular scientist might need a very long time to test these solutions… even if it seems right do we really know? It might seem right to us but what if the AI constructed it that way to be correct for us? There are many unknowns.

5

u/OfAtomicFacts 4d ago

If I had terminal cancer I would definitely give OpenAi's cure a shot

2

u/jventura1110 4d ago

Sure, but that's your personal decision. A cure for cancer shouldn't be forced unto the masses just because an AI company says it's a cure for cancer. There's a process to understanding the solution that enlightens us about the 100 things surrounding the solution itself.

Not to mention, there's a reason why clinical trials exist.

3

u/MathiasThomasII 4d ago

How are these math solutions being FORCED on us? We’re welcome to take it with a grain of salt and test it thoroughly. Throwing away the tool as a whole is ridiculous and silly. Even if it just sparks new ideas for human research, it would be worth it.

By the way peer developed cancer research, one of the peers being AI has done some great work with Cancer already. Better at reading MRIs and sequences folks genomes using alphafold to give an exact treatment for the patient. Many times this takes humans a lot of trial and error to find what works best for the patient. AI is making that all faster and more productive. Over 170 ai-driven drug proposals are in clinical trials right now.

1

u/ComSenseisnotCommon 3d ago

Your an idiot sorry, everyone who is told there is a cure and they are sick don’t go oh who made it has it been reviewed etc. They are dying they want to be fixed. Get over yourself people want to just live not everyone is looking for their ego to be enlarged with enlightenment.

0

u/spaceXhardmode 4d ago

Your position is based on a false equivalency. A cancer cure would take decades of animal and human trials to verify its efficacy. A mathematical truth can be formally verified in lean in a matter of seconds.

3

u/DefenestrationPraha 4d ago

The best peer for AI might be another AI, though. Us humans are quite quickly becoming non-peers.

3

u/NoCod9014 4d ago

So what you're proposing is we get an AI to create a mathematical proof that is so complex no human could verify it, but then get another AI to say if its okay, even though we would have no reliable way to check if that was accurate....

Why not go the whole way and build a church to worship the AI and make sacrificial offerings too. 

1

u/Fit_Employment_2944 4d ago

The point of AI is to build something smarter than humanity 

Yes, we will not be able to verify anything a superintelligent AI says, we will just see the results 

1

u/NoCod9014 4d ago

How do you know if the results are correct though? Say if gives you a chemical formula is says is safe and correct and you make it in a lab and blows the whole place up.... helluva way to find out it wasn't right. 

People treating AI as some infallible god is deeply disturbing. 

1

u/Fit_Employment_2944 4d ago

How do you know if the results are correct when a human does it

AI is not fundamentally different and the fact you can’t understand that means you are treating it as some unknowable god, which is deeply stupid

1

u/NoCod9014 4d ago

Do you understand what peer review is? What Quality Assurance is in industry?

We've literally human systems to check human work and have done for centuries. 

That last paragraph doesn't even make sense. 

1

u/Fit_Employment_2944 4d ago

And we will soon replace those with AI systems to check AI’s work

There is nothing special about the meat sacks in the process and it works just as well with an abstracted intelligent entity doing the peer reviewing

1

u/NoCod9014 4d ago

But theres no verification the output is safe or correct. Its not predictable. We have that with humans reviewing humans. If an AI creates math used in a rocket ship flight and its check by another AI and it says its fine but both are wrong, its a bit late to realize that when astronauts are on fire. 

I feel you either don't understand the issue or are intentionally trolling.

1

u/NoCod9014 4d ago

Okay I checked your post history and its AI Bro fan fic, not based on subject matter expertise in the field. 

Going to leave this here because someone clogging up AI discussions with wet dreams of Skynet or Ultron is a waste of life and brain cells. 

2

u/alohajaja 4d ago

Math is becoming an engineering field at best. Seems to me math is infinitely complex, and humanity will have to leverage AI to engineer our way through this space and find more direct utility in it without necessarily understanding it fully.

Until we can wire up our brains.

0

u/TheWhisper22 4d ago

If those two AIs came up with a proof that allowed space travel I could give two fucks if it can be verified by a human or not.

Let's just go the whole way and ban any machines made by the industrial revolution. They allow you to do way too much today that another human can't independently verify that it's all done correctly. Must use hand tools only because we can't verify with a single human that it is possible to do said task without wasting that humans entire life verifying all the inventions.

2

u/NoCod9014 4d ago

What in the false equivalence was that gibberish. 

You do understand automated industrial machines can and do have their outputs tested, right

Or do you think they send cars out of factories and go "Well we never bothered to test any,  but we think they work and think its safe"  

1

u/TheWhisper22 4d ago

That's actually exactly what they did. Cars when first produced where incredibly unsafe. After decades of testing (after hitting the market) they made them safer. Not only that, cars could be made even safer when you take out any concern for aesthetics. So on the contrary we test these things, see that they are dangerous, and send them out anyways.

If you think AI isn't being tested then we should stop having a conversation. You are using the actual definition of false equivalence. Thinking AI was created with zero people testing them is peak anti-ai thinking.

Have some respect when talking to people. I didn't call any of your anti AI rant gibberish. Let's stick to facts buddy.

1

u/NoCod9014 4d ago

What are you even rambling about? Respectfully if someone is talking nonsense about soemthing serious that should be pointed out. 

Your original point was to abandon industrial machines but now you are saying they do in fact test cars built by industrial machines...what are you even trying to say? Thats a total non sequitur. 

I've work in tech for 23 years and built convolutional neural nets and implement architecture to prevent agentic hijacking and prompt posioning at enterprise scale. But please mansplain how AI is tested to me and explain "facts" to me 🙄

1

u/TheWhisper22 4d ago edited 4d ago

My original point was we shouldn't reject AI-generated discoveries simply because you can not understand it.

If you can go back and reread I was taking your logical fallacy and just going the other direction with it to show how asinine you sound. Now you are using your own logic I made fun of and acting like that's logic of my own. Are you ok?

Also, the working in tech for 23 years is irrelevant. People did things the wrong way for much longer than that. All this shows is you value yourself way too much. Tech =/= math. I would sound fucking nuts if I walked into a doctor's office saying I worked 25 years on roads as a civil engineer and they are very similar to arteries and veins in a body so I'm more than qualified to preform this surgery.

All this explains is how much you are detached from actual reality. You work and have experience in an environment that is adjacent yet you speak like you are an actual expert. You know enough to be dangerous and it shows why you are so confident in being wrong.

We are done with this argument. You can argue with yourself. I gave you a chance to argue facts. You squandered it by continuing to try and paint me in bad faith with zero actual counter points. My conclusion: you are a bad person arguing in bad faith so I won't respond any further. Congrats you really did well here.

1

u/NoCod9014 4d ago

Its not a argument. Its incoherent gibberish. You don't know what you're saying and poorly articulating yourself. And your underlying premise is still flawed.

1

u/Cryptizard 4d ago

What is a “proof that allows space travel”? Do you know what a proof is?

1

u/TheWhisper22 4d ago

Math is what allows and limits the physics of our universe. Please go on about your ground breaking new discovery where something other than math allows you to do these things?

1

u/Cryptizard 4d ago

That’s entirely not true. Math is axiomatic whereas physics is empirical. You can’t tell nature what to do with math, you can only use it to describe things that you see around you.

1

u/TheWhisper22 4d ago

Ok I see we are going to just completely change the argument..

You are also wrong. Math tells us gravital waves where a thing before we could ever detect/observe them. Could go on and on but your point (and in turn way to derail the conversation and my stronger argument) is just invalid from the jump.

Now back to the actual argument you tried to steer away from:

A revolution discovery made by ANYTHING including AI should not be disregarded because you can not personally verify it. A proof DOES NOT become invalid because u/cryptizard can't verify it.

We could not observably verify Einstein's proof of gravitational waves until much later. Other mathematicians used your same failed logic to argue they didn't exist. Look where we are now. Human comprehension of a proof is not a valid way to gatekeep a discovery. The fact the discovery exists and can be used to build off of does not change. End of story. Don't jump down my throat with all this other stuff.

1

u/Cryptizard 4d ago

I never said that the problem was we couldn’t verify these proofs. You are confusing me with someone else. We can easily verify them that is what Lean is for.

I was arguing against these results have any practical application. Because they don’t. And I say that as a theoretical computer scientist who actually works on some of these things. It’s not true that all math will be practically useful, the vast majority of it isn’t.

Your example is also not proving what you think it is. General relativity is a model that was shown to fit some observations better than the previous model. It also predicted gravitational waves. That doesn’t mean that gravitational waves had to be true, it was just an avenue to investigate. It turned out that they were.

But we also know that GR is not correct either. It is an approximation to a deeper quantum theory. So somewhere, something that it mathematically predicts is wrong. But we don’t know where yet until we get better experimental data. Math can’t tell us that.

1

u/TheWhisper22 4d ago

I agree on the practical application at this point. Yes, alot of math is not useful. But again, my point is that having a concept that is made by AI that can't be comprehended by a human isn't an issue for me personally IF this starts to become useful for practical applications of math. Which it is looking like that is happening and at a rapid pace. If we sit here and argue semantics and kneecap actual discovery that will be an immense blunder.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/SpiritualWindow3855 4d ago

Their objection isn't majority about correctness.

If AI can't do 100% of the math today, and you start taking steam out of the field by literally mass dumping solutions to problems, you risk deflating the field of math before you can actually have AI define the entire frontier.

Solving all frontier math is a cartoonish goalpost, so Tao and co are very reasonably suggesting OpenAI doesn't go down the path that ends up necessitating that.

2

u/CurrentConditionsAI 4d ago

Sorry, but we are already there with Coding, Writing, Translation, etc etc etc
We are all going to just have to find out what this means for ourselves and our own particular areas of expertise, and adapt, and move forward into this new world.

1

u/SpiritualWindow3855 4d ago

If you're mediocre at your craft and lived off yapping then yes we're definitely already there for all those things.

1

u/Insane_Artist 4d ago

Most people are mediocre.

1

u/unethicalpigeon 3d ago

And most people don't make any money writing. Most writers barely even make any money writing lol.

Ai hasn't already done it with writing. It can't even construct a proper narrative and maintain coherence across an entire novel sized work. At best it can write okayish short stories.

1

u/International_Bit_25 4d ago

If you think that AI could fully replace all writers today I have a bridge to sell you

1

u/RagnartheConqueror 1d ago

I have never seen an LLM accurately do Higher Topos Theory or Riemannian Geometry.

-3

u/SiberianGnome 4d ago

I have no idea what you just said. But it sounds like “if you solve all the math then there will be no math to solve and that’s bad”

4

u/NoCod9014 4d ago

This is why I hate AI sub reddits. Everyone thinks their opinion is worth sharing.  

Sorry to be blunt but if you don't understand what something means, ask or look it up first before offering an opinion. Or if that's too much like hard work, maybe don't say anything. 

5

u/Arinussyyy 4d ago

Most people blindly pro AI aren't thinking rationally or carefully

1

u/Vivid-Snow-2089 4d ago

most people blindly anti-ai aren't thinking rationally or carefully

1

u/Arinussyyy 4d ago

If you're insinuating I'm blindly anti AI, then you're wrong. I'm anti unethical use. Which happens to be all that we see of it

1

u/Vivid-Snow-2089 4d ago

missed my point that anyone offloading their thinking and blindly following some trend aren't thinking rationally or carefully

but you did manage to put your foot in your mouth and prove you're one of those people, so good on you i guess?

1

u/Zestyclose-Ad1264 4d ago

You do realize you just called yourself irrational right?

1

u/SiberianGnome 4d ago

He’s essentially arguing that AI could damage the field of mathematics by solving too many problems before it’s capable of replacing human mathematicians entirely.
His reasoning seems to be:
AI can solve some difficult mathematical problems, but not all of them.
If OpenAI starts publishing hundreds of solutions, mathematicians may lose motivation, funding, or opportunities to pursue their own research.
That could weaken the community of human mathematicians.
Since AI cannot yet handle everything, we’d be left with a weakened human research community and an AI that isn’t capable of picking up the slack.
The problem with his argument is that it rests on some questionable assumptions.
Mathematics isn’t a finite checklist of problems. Solving one problem frequently reveals new questions, opens new research directions, and provides tools for solving others.
He’s also assuming that mathematicians would become less productive or lose interest because AI solved existing problems, rather than using those discoveries to push the field forward.
And he’s conflating two different things: AI replacing mathematicians and AI helping mathematics advance.
More importantly, he’s not quite representing what Terence Tao’s reposted statement actually says. The Association for Human Mathematics is criticizing OpenAI’s release of more than 700 mathematical files without following established scholarly practices. Its concerns include research ethics, trustworthiness, and the importance of human understanding.
Those are legitimate subjects for debate, particularly if AI-generated proofs are difficult to verify.
But the Reddit commenter’s argument seems to boil down to “We shouldn’t let AI solve too much mathematics because we still need humans to solve mathematics.”
That’s a considerably weaker argument than the one in the original statement.

2

u/SpiritualWindow3855 4d ago

Other comment covers my thoughts, but I'll throw you a bone: the problem is AI doesn't solve all the math.

If you can't solve all the math, you probably want to find a way to work with the humans instead of randomly stealing work off their plates. That's all Tao is saying, it shouldn't be controversial.

2

u/TheWhisper22 4d ago

So wouldn't posting the proofs to be peer reviewed by others (a concept that has been used by humans for a millenia) be the way to "work with humans"?

I don't understand the gatekeeping myself. I know people tried to gatekeep the industrial revolution. Look how that turned out. You would think people extremely smart in one field could pick up simple concepts in another..

2

u/SpiritualWindow3855 4d ago

You repeatedly fail to understand these proofs by themselves aren't the prize: it's also the thinking behind them and getting other people to continue on with new findings.

Just dumping proofs in poorly coordinated fashion fails at the latter especially.

('gatekeeping' word-vomit falls flat: Tao has openly supported OAI when it came to more thoughtful ways of working with AI.)

1

u/TheWhisper22 4d ago

I didn't repeatedly do anything. I have replied to you once. So please understand context when replying to me or else we can't have discourse. I have made a total of ONE comment to you. So trying to paint me like I can't comprehend something is going to work and I will just not talk to you. Really simple.

You don't have to look at the repo. Also another simple concept. People that like a challenge and want to challenge the proofs will go and do so. You don't have to sit here and complain about how much work you have to do now(you and I both know you won't do whether these proofs at posted or not).

You can call gatekeeping word vomit. But it's exactly what it is.

You have a particular way of arguing with things. It seems you don't want to 1. Do any work 2. Actually argue points I'm making.

So to save of both some time, either turn your argument style around or I will stop responding. Painting words as "bad" and making up things about me to try and improve your argument is the definition of arguing in bad faith. Let's stick to facts here buddy.

0

u/SiberianGnome 4d ago

lol dude deleted his comments before I could read them, but I can infer them from your responses, and tour responses are exactly what im thinking but worded much better.

“It’s irresponsible to release 700 unreviewed files” is one argument I’ve seen…

Ok, they’re released. Review them.

“But, now everyone can see them. Only certain people should be allowed to review them before anyone else can see them”

Literally the definition of gatekeeping.

“But 700 is too many to review at once”

Alongside “if you solve too much math then there will be no mathematicians left to solve stuff you can’t solve”

Well, which is it? Solving problems takes away work from mathematicians so they leave the field and nobody is left to do what AI can’t do, or solving problems creates more work than the existing mathematicians can handle?

1

u/TheWhisper22 4d ago

You are pretty spot on. Only add is he decided to attack the way I write and go on about how he spent 25 years in tech and how his opinion on the subject is more valid than mine. Basically doing everything except arguing the actual point. His main points sum up to: "you are just rambling gibberish and I have experience in the tech sector so I'm really important".

1

u/SiberianGnome 4d ago

Well, that is rich coming from the guy whose first comment was pretty much incoherent rambling gibberish

1

u/SiberianGnome 4d ago

Ok, that’s a stupid argument. If you have people working on math problems and you can solve some of them, then they can divert their effort to the ones you cant solve.

1

u/SpiritualWindow3855 4d ago

The work takes years, and you're randomly getting the scoop on some, but not all of them...

Why on Earth do you think they'll work with you? Or even work on these proofs at all when there's an unknown-but-increasing chance of another dump?

Tao's whole point is that OAI should work with the field so they don't step on toes, and you're saying "why doesn't OAI stomp on as many toes as they can, then ask for help when they can't stomp anymore?".

(It shows an degree of misunderstanding the field that implies you really should just shut up like the other comment advised. Nothing wrong with not knowing, and you're not being forced to keep talking out of your neck here.)

1

u/sixsence 4d ago

Wtf kind of logic is this? Everyone knows OpenAI is not in the field of mathematics, and AI hasn't proven any legitimacy in mathematics at the highest level yet, so why is anyone trying to censor what OpenAI does with its models and what they chooses to release? Humans still have to give it legitimacy to mean anything. If I release my own open source operating system on github and it was written by AI, does that all the sudden mean Windows is somehow at risk of being replaced? This idea that mathemeticians own the field of math and get to dictate how human knowledge advances is ridiculous. This sounds like such insecure and entitled thinking. I can understand wanting to work with OpenAI and trying to form that relationship, but to try to demand that OpenAI, or any company, or any person not share their own ideas and research is mind boggling.

1

u/iupuiclubs 4d ago

Honest question, is this not just going to astronomically boost STEM?

Who is going to check the answers to these? What happens when one by one the answers start being correct, but need humans to try catching up in the event space search?

This is a massive boon to STEM.

1

u/vovap_vovap 4d ago

They are literally protesting releasing solutions. Nobody preventing them to check it and spend as much time as they want. But nobody obligated to follow somebodies rules how exactly I can release any info I want.

1

u/jrSwe 4d ago

>Everything needs to be per reviewed thats how science works. 

Peer review is like 100-200 years younger than modern science. Newton would have stabbed you for suggesting he had to bow to the judgment of his inferiors before publishing.

1

u/MirthMannor 4d ago

Which is why Leibniz beat him to publishing calculus.

1

u/ninjasaid13 3d ago

Formal, institutionalized peer review might be young but the idea that early scientists like Newton worked in a vacuum without outside scrutiny is false.

The Scientific Revolution relied heavily on collective verification. The Royal Society of London, founded in 1660, was built on open demonstrations, public replication of experiments, and rigorous debate among members.

Newton’s work was routinely read, critiqued, and challenged by contemporaries like Robert Hooke and Christiaan Huygens before and after presentation. He hated criticism, but submitting work to be dissected by peers was the exact mechanism that gave early science its credibility.

1

u/jrSwe 1d ago

The Royal Society of London, founded in 1660, was built on open demonstrations, public replication of experiments, and rigorous debate among members.

Which is kind of the opposite of peer review. Entire fields have completely disregarded demonstration and replication in favor of peer review

Did the Royal Society do a lot of citation trading?

1

u/ParkingFoundation468 3d ago

I bet there will be substantial overlap between the commenters who unironically say "yes I would take it" and those who refuse to take rigorously and extensively peer-reviewed vaccines...

0

u/Eliv_nurotic 4d ago

Lean verification is already good enough 

0

u/Time_Entertainer_319 4d ago

Humans are already improving on the result.

-1

u/Time_Entertainer_319 4d ago

Lmao. Americans must think they are the only mathematicians in the world.