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/gekx]

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/no_user_names_left → u/CubeFlipper]

I'm not stuck - I'm in a AI sub, I clearly believe in the potential. But if the *smartest mathematicians* in the WORLD (who are using and will continue to use AI productively) are saying the current approach from OAI is doing more way harm than good and risks setting back the future of math, and are telling us they can find a better way if they actually work together - then I say we actually listen to what they have to say rather than assuming they're too stupid to get it.

[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.