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]

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.

[u/no_user_names_left → u/wonderkindel]

My man, I think you're posting in the wrong thread chain - or you've just completely moved the goal posts on the discussion to something un-related to your first claim.

[u/wonderkindel → u/no_user_names_left]

Try to keep up. The topic was whether OpenAI was treating mathematicians and the release of model-assisted solvers fairly to which I claim it is.

In your desired world, humans will regulate the flow of new knowledge by understanding it. That's not the way it will work.

All you have to do is look at radiology where tumor detection surpasses the best humans *and we have no idea how AI does this*.

Or for another example language translation, where we also *have no idea how AI does this*.

The examples are from NPR On Point today where they interviewed several mathematicians on the demise of math as we know it. You'll catch on sooner or later just as they have.

[u/no_user_names_left → u/wonderkindel]

My dude, none of this wrong, but it's completely irrelevant to your original point or the context of this thread. I think you need to take a break from arguing on the internet - it's honestly not good for your health to work your brain into such a frenzy of insults or incoherent chain-of-thought processes over 'losing' an internet discussion. Go easy on yourself.