Twenty-five Fields Medalists, including Terence Tao, Yuguo Deng, and Peter Scholze, issued a joint statement criticizing AI companies for treating major mathematical problems as benchmarks, saying the practice has already begun to harm mathematical research. The statement acknowledged that large language models have advanced quickly in recent months and have managed to solve important open problems across multiple areas. Still, the signatories argued that mathematics values the new concepts, methods, and understanding generated through research, not just a result alone. They were especially critical of companies rushing to announce findings before full proofs are organized, new methods are distilled, and prior work is properly cited. According to the statement, that has created serious authorship and plagiarism issues. The statement did not name OpenAI, but a related report by The Economist framed the dispute directly around the company. Days earlier, OpenAI had already been drawn into controversy over authorship and unpublished research tied to a Navier-Stokes proof.
Twenty-five Fields Medalists, including Terence Tao, Yuguo Deng, and Peter Scholze, issued a joint statement criticizing AI companies for treating major mathematical problems as benchmarks, saying the practice has already started to damage mathematical research.
The statement acknowledged that large models have made rapid progress in recent months and are now able to solve important open problems in multiple fields. But the signatories said mathematics places greater value on the new concepts, methods, and understanding that come out of that work.
Their sharpest criticism was aimed at companies racing to publicize results. The statement said some solutions were announced before full proofs had been organized, before new methods had been extracted, and before citations to earlier work had been completed, creating serious authorship and plagiarism problems.
It also said that without mathematicians continuing to absorb and organize those results, ideas found by AI would struggle to enter the body of mathematics in a meaningful way.
The statement did not name OpenAI. Still, a related report by The Economist used the headline that leading mathematicians were angry about OpenAI’s approach. A few days earlier, OpenAI had already been pulled into an authorship and unpublished research dispute involving a Navier-Stokes proof.
Tao said the statement was drafted quickly after discussions over the past week because the group believed the situation had become urgent enough to warrant it.
This article was originally published by Bit.Fan. For more cryptocurrency news and market insights, visit www.bit.fan. Disclaimer:
The market information, project data, and third-party content displayed on this platform are for industry information sharing only and do not constitute any form of investment advice or return commitment.
Cryptocurrency trading carries high risks. Users should fully assess their risk tolerance and make independent decisions. All profits, losses, and legal responsibilities are borne by the users themselves.
