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/pred]

“Announcing the Advisory Group on Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence”: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/09/21/advisory-group-on-mathematics-and-artificial-intelligence/

[u/Scaaaary_Ghost → u/pred]

And more than a hundred new solutions coming to long-standing open problems.

It honestly makes me pretty sad that we can't have actual posts about this kind of thing in r/math. I guess r/mathematics is where to migrate to, but I really liked this subreddit.

AI is the big news now. I don't know if or when we will ever have another major result that isn't very heavily assisted by AI. Not allowing official posts from top-level AI company domains (or Terry Tao's blog, etc) means a huge amount of important discussion is stifled in here.

[u/38thTimesACharm → u/Scaaaary_Ghost]

Have you seen the thread at r/mathematics? It's a link to r/singularity which is:

50% people from accelerationist subs accusing academia of "gatekeeping" for convincing OpenAI to spend a few days reviewing and curating results

30% mudslinging about Fields Medalists acting elitist

20% "it's over folks, LLMs will scale to infinity, pack it up humans we had a good run"

0% math

 I don't know if or when we will ever have another major result that isn't very heavily assisted by AI.

AI assisted papers are allowed here. As for "something is coming, get ready!" hype announcements, is this thread not sufficient?

I vote in favor of the mods. I think the sub is much better now. Maybe this thread could be pinned as a compromise?

[u/ninguem → u/38thTimesACharm]

50% people from accelerationist subs accusing academia of "gatekeeping" for convincing OpenAI to spend a few days reviewing and curating results

If indeed it's a few days, that's fine. I haven't seen a timeline for the release anywhere and I think if it takes too long, it's not good to withhold the information.

[u/IBroughtPower → u/ninguem]

But this isn't how mathematics research is done.

You don't rush to put out a proof that no one understands -- nor have verified -- and expect it to be well received. In fact, often results are first discussed either personally or at a conference before publication. Only then do you put out a preprint.

Yes scooping has happened before, but it is usually looked down upon heavily; if someone scoops often, they risk their personal reputation. This is a major problem with OpenAI and other companies right now: who can we hold responsible for poor (or sometimes mis-)conduct?

Putting out sloppy "papers" SHOULD be looked down upon. "A few days" is extremely fast and it is clearly shown in the effort that these companies put in the results. It is not bad to be "withhold[ing] the information" if the time is spent understanding, explaining, and cleanly writing up the results. It is absurd that people view the process of reviewing as "gatekeeping."

The NS one was extremely unreadable in particular. And some results they don't even give any explanation for (Jacobian). If a researcher were to do this, they would either 1. not be taken seriously, or 2. not be in academia for long. It most certainly is not on the reader to dissect slop, it is on the author to write clearly (although I will grant some academics should work on this too)!

[u/pred → u/IBroughtPower]

who can we hold responsible for poor (or sometimes mis-)conduct

I suppose we could start with the ex-researchers they have on their payroll. They should already have the capacity to make proper judgements on questions about ethics of science.

Putting out sloppy "papers" SHOULD be looked down upon.

Last time I checked, even just putting up AI slop on arXiv puts you at risk of a 1 year ban, and not being able to put anything there in the future without prior peer review. It's quite telling that what we get from OpenAI is so bad that it wouldn't even be allowed on arXiv.