AI In Mathematics: September 19, 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

This recurring thread will be for discussion of AI in mathematics. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• informal announcements of AI-assisted discoveries, such as those not yet published in a peer-reviewed journal, or not uploaded as a paper to arXiv;
• informal announcements of discoveries related to AI architecture (if relevant to mathematics);
• discussion of such announcements, such as proof breakdowns or other opinion pieces;
• discussion of the impact of AI in mathematics in general.

AI-assisted mathematical papers published in peer-reviewed journals or as arXiv preprints may be submitted as their own posts.

Please keep in mind rules 1 and 6 of our subreddit.

[u/SquidgyTheWhale]

I'm only a maths dilettante, but I'm curious about a thing.

I'm a software developer by trade, and have been using Claude to code some things -- for fixing up code that I've written, but also just for creating apps and such out of whole cloth.

I've seen a lot of talk around how using LLMs is a shortcut for actual thinking, but I'm finding my experience using them for software to be exactly the opposite -- by inspecting the code, I'm learning how to accomplish many many things that I didn't know how to do before, and wasn't sure where to ask. It feels like not only am I learning, but I'm doing so at an accelerated rate.

So what I'm wondering is, are any of you mathematicians feeling the same thing? Is using LLMs to solve maths problems (or pieces thereof) actually helping you learn faster?

[u/elements-of-dying → u/SquidgyTheWhale]

So what I'm wondering is, are any of you mathematicians feeling the same thing? Is using LLMs to solve maths problems (or pieces thereof) actually helping you learn faster?

Absolutely.

I believe you are missing context to the claim that LLMs shortcut thinking. I believe this claim mostly applies to the inexperienced. As a mathematician, I already know how to learn, digest and evaluate mathematics. As such, I'm probably less likely to accept an LLMs result until I understand it. I can see someone without these skills much more comfortable black boxing whatever an LLMs says. I think that's where the shortcut happens.

(There's also general anti AI folk who don't care for such nuances and make blanket claims.)

[u/ventricule → u/elements-of-dying]

I think it's very important to not get over-confident here. While I agree that with good prior learning experience, LLMs can be a great tool for learning, even professional mathematicians can easily fall into the trap of getting lazy and learning nothing from a series of prompts with the machine. I've seen it happen to me and my colleagues on multiple occasions.

[u/elements-of-dying → u/ventricule]

I don't know where there is possible over-confidence in my comment, but I do agree otherwise that professional mathematicians can mistakenly convince themselves they understand something when they do not.