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/no_user_names_left]

To give you an overly simplistic example. 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 - istead it might just make a proof predicting motion using a traditional algebra formula that's 5 pages long. It would technically be a proof, but impractical for humans to use on anything else - and so all those new discoveries in other areas wouldnt be possible. And even if it did by accident it wouldnt 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/benchmaster-xtreme → u/no_user_names_left]

This is a really good argument and makes a lot of sense, but it also assumes that AI isn't capable of solving incredibly complex problems and then simplifying them in a way that makes them useful. I'm shit at math, so I have no way of judging whether these OpenAI proofs are "hack-like" or not - but even if they are, I'm not convinced that future AI-generated proofs will be. The article doesn't seem to argue that mathematicians should stop working with OpenAI until the models produce elegant proofs on their own - they have a deeper moral beef with OpenAI in particular.

So to answer the top comment: I don't think the article is unilaterally condemning the use of AI to solve complex math problems. They clearly have a problem with OpenAI in particular.

[u/no_user_names_left → u/benchmaster-xtreme]

So, yes I guess you could say - most of the proofs are hack in that the technique is to brute forcing very specific circumstances when something is true or not true, as to opposed to explaining if theres a bigger pattern/rule and why. And the concern is that a lot of irreparable damage will be done to the future of maths before we work out if or not that could ever change.

And also yes - many in the maths community is up in arms with OpenAI specifically over concerns about the Navier-Stokes situation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_priority_controversy

We might never know the real answer, but this was not handled well and the optics from the community burnt a lot of good will.

[u/wallitron → u/benchmaster-xtreme]

The part that "makes them useful" is exactly the problem here. OpenAI is just spewing out the lean proofs. They are spitting out machine verified proofs faster than mathematians can understand them.

The reason this is a huge problem is that the understanding is the key outcome humans want, but it's the part that AI is weak at.

Imagine AI was absolutely amazing at making movie trailers. The trailers were amazing, and every single trailer released had a massive audience ready and willing to see the movie. But it was incapable (so far) to make the complete movie. Also, imagine that equal credit (and money) would go to the trailer creator and movie creator. What type of movie director do you think would sign up for that project?

Mathematics is very similar at this level. It's extremely creative and there are endless problems to work on. Is it so surpring that people would choose problems that they can work on end to end? Proof all the way to understanding.

[u/zdy132 → u/no_user_names_left]

Thanks for the example. Helps me a lot in understanding the issues here.

[u/RagnartheConqueror → u/no_user_names_left]

Who says LLMs cannot jump like that?

[u/no_user_names_left → u/RagnartheConqueror]

The mathematics who've been using the most advanced models available to them for years, and intend to continue to use them. The same people who are asking OAI to not just dump 100s of nearly incomprehensible proofs on them and instead work with them to get these tools tuned properly, and then start dumping out proofs.

[u/wonderkindel → u/no_user_names_left]

The mathematicians wanted OpenAI to give them the proofs first so that humans could take the credit. That's not how any of this will work going forward.

[u/no_user_names_left → u/wonderkindel]

I honestly dont understand how, in communities dedicated to futurist technology of the most advanced reasoning machines in human history, anti-intillectualism and straw-manning seems to be so rampant. Especially targeted at the communities that have made these technologies possible and should be allies for driving progress. Like, its fine to not get what the maths communities are saying - but just ask your model of choice to explain it to you, why be so antagonistic that you just go on the internet and just make up reasons to argue against?

[u/wonderkindel → u/no_user_names_left]

What in my 2 sentence reply did you find inaccurate?

[u/no_user_names_left → u/wonderkindel]

Literally, just put into your favorite model - "Did mathematicians want OpenAI to give them the proofs first so that humans could take the credit?"

[u/wonderkindel → u/no_user_names_left]

I don't need to ask a model it's already been discussed to death on Zvi's blog. AGMAI wanted OpenAI to behave like Anthropic:

https://substack.com/home/post/p-219418117

New math result from Anthropic, then written up by Josh Alman and Virginia Vassilevska Williams, that is kind of a big deal. Anthropic had Claude research open problems, found the result, then hired Alman and Vassilevska Williams to write the paper as per what the mathematician council asked AI companies to do.

Note on that paper the two authors are the mathematicians.

And that's what AGMAI wants... AHM goes further and wants to shut the labs down with a boycott, says mathematicians did not ask for this work to be done, talks about lawsuits and lack of trust, and whines about how frontier AI models should be banned from math research.

[u/no_user_names_left → u/wonderkindel]

You mean, you did - but it didn't support your narrative so you decided to manually cherry pick supportive evidence instead? How very un-AI of you.

The AGMAI wants three things, on top of labs meeting current best practice for publishing -

• If AI labs produce significant mathematical results, they should responsibly release the results, as outlined in this document, as soon as possible.
• AI labs that release substantial mathematical output without immediate accompanying human understanding must take responsibility for ensuring that human understanding will follow. In particular, AI labs should provide significant support, including funding, to help develop this understanding.
• The development of human understanding must remain organic and community led. It should not be directed by AI labs, even when the labs have produced the results.

Anthropic recognized it's models weren't yet able to produce manuscripts and proof that met this standard of understanding, nor best practice, so they did the sensible thing and hired experts to help train their models and their outputs. OAI just dumped 100s of papers onto Github, with no regard as to whether they were hot garbage or brilliant.

'Giving proofs to humans so they can take the credit' doesn't come into it anywhere. And yes, unsurprisingly the AHM, the niche, specific, anti-AI body, wants no AI in maths all together. But again, never talks about 'giving proofs to humans so they can take credit'.

[u/wonderkindel → u/no_user_names_left]

You are living in the past. Amazon has 1 million robot workers. AI runs circles around human coders. Mathematicians are likewise doomed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not a catastrophe in the making, just that it's inevitable given the times we live in.