An opinion piece arguing that AI-discovered proofs of long-standing open math problems should be published promptly, and that mathematicians are not entitled to special protection from AI-driven discovery beyond proper verification and attribution. The author, a creative professional, contends technological displacement already hit creative fields and that slowing scientific progress for a profession's adjustment period is unjustified.
First off, let me be clear. I don’t think AI companies should be “scooping” mathematicians who may be using their systems and then preemptively publishing their work without acknowledging that those mathematicians were part of the process. That’s shitty and people deserve credit for the work they actually contributed. But apparently we’re now at the point where AI systems are potentially solving a bunch of long standing open math problems, and some of those results aren’t being released yet while everyone figures out how to handle this responsibly. And honestly, that’s what kind of pisses me off. If the reason we’re holding something back is because the proof needs to be verified, absolutely. Verify the hell out of it. Make sure it’s actually correct and actually a new discovery. Make sure the model didn’t pull it from someone’s existing or unpublished work. Figure out attribution. I have zero problem with any of that. But if part of the reason we’re slowing this down is because the mathematics community needs time to adjust to AI potentially being able to do work that used to require mathematicians, that’s dumb. Mathematicians don’t “own” mathematical truths because they’re the first people to discover or prove them. They deserve credit for their discoveries, obviously. But that’s different from having some special claim over who or what is allowed to discover the next one. And math is especially weird to claim ownership over. Unlike a painting, you didn’t create the underlying truth. You figured it out. You deserve credit for that discovery, but you don’t own the answer. I’m a creative. I’ve watched AI tear through creative fields for better and for worse. Artists have spent years basically being told “adapt, because this technology isn’t going away.” So why exactly should mathematicians get a pass? And I know someone is going to say “well AI shouldn’t be taking creative jobs either.” Maybe it shouldn’t. I would rather fewer people lose their livelihoods to AI too. But it has happened and it’s not stopping. That ship has sailed. And I’m not saying “creatives got screwed so mathematicians should get screwed too.” That’s not my point. My point is why are we suddenly deciding technological displacement is unacceptable when it reaches highly specialized academic fields? “Humans should be the ones making mathematical discoveries” isn’t enough of an argument for me. I’m gonna need a better argument for why mathematicians deserve an exemption other than “but discovering things is our job.” The unfortunate reality is that nobody is guaranteed the ability to financially support themselves doing the thing they’re passionate about. Most creative people already can’t. Think about how many absolutely incredible singers you know who will never make a living singing. Or amazing artists who work completely unrelated day jobs. It sucks. It’s unfair. That’s life. And if you can’t get satisfaction out of creating, researching, doing mathematics or pursuing something you love unless you’re also the person getting paid or recognized for doing it first, that’s kind of a you problem. Take it to the extreme. If AI became capable of discovering a cure for a form of cancer before human researchers could, are we seriously going to tell it to slow down because we’d rather have a human scientist figure it out first? Obviously that’s an extreme example, but that’s the principle I’m talking about. I care a hell of a lot more about what we can discover than whether a human or a machine gets bragging rights for discovering it. So verify the proofs. Figure out attribution. Make sure someone’s specific work isn’t being passed off as an independent AI discovery. Take all of that seriously. But if AI uses publicly available knowledge to independently discover something new, publish it. I’m not interested in slowing down human knowledge because someone’s profession got nuked.
The article discusses the backlash from mathematicians after OpenAI's model solved the Navier-Stokes problem, highlighting accusations of data theft and selfish concerns over AI's impact on scientific sharing.
Mathematicians, via the Leiden Declaration endorsed by the International Mathematical Union, warn that AI threatens core values of mathematical research, including correctness, transparency, and citation practices, while also raising concerns about industry influence and the erosion of traditional standards.
A commentary highlighting the perceived hypocrisy of mathematicians who spent decades justifying taxpayer funding on societal benefit grounds, but now decry AI solving famous open problems as harmful to the field and its community.
This opinion piece argues OpenAI is justified in publishing its AI-generated mathematical results through its own channels rather than traditional peer review, and that mathematicians' complaints stem from self-preservation rather than academic integrity concerns.
The article proposes that 'motivated explanations' in mathematics should be academically credited alongside proofs, particularly as AI-generated proofs challenge traditional measures of contribution.