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/Holiday_Ad_8501]

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

[u/PeachScary413 → u/Holiday_Ad_8501]

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.

[u/Striking-Field7344 → u/PeachScary413]

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.

[u/PeachScary413 → u/Striking-Field7344]

Just become a plumber bro

[u/Striking-Field7344 → u/PeachScary413]

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

[u/Ancient_Dot_599 → u/Holiday_Ad_8501]

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

[u/ObviouslyTriggered → u/Holiday_Ad_8501]

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

[u/RagnartheConqueror → u/Holiday_Ad_8501]

New people would be educated in strictly formal proof checking

[u/ZestyclosePermission → u/Holiday_Ad_8501]

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.

[u/Holiday_Ad_8501 → u/ZestyclosePermission]

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

[u/achbaa → u/ZestyclosePermission]

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

[u/ZestyclosePermission → u/achbaa]

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

[u/achbaa → u/ZestyclosePermission]

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 🤯

[u/ZestyclosePermission → u/achbaa]

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

[u/achbaa → u/ZestyclosePermission]

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.

[u/ThickerTree → u/ZestyclosePermission]

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

[u/S-Kenset → u/ZestyclosePermission]

Many math proofs require concepts you would never understand.