Part of The OpenAI Safety Reckoning · 9 stories · since Sep 24 · newest 1h ago
OpenAI's 722-paper math dump splits mathematicians, forces retractionsAssociation for Human Mathematics calls for a boycott of OpenAI
2 Oct 7 · 7d ago · 21 articles · 18 posts · 42 comments · 7 sources · development 2 of 7
The AHM issued a statement arguing the mass release was an act of power rather than scholarship and urged mathematicians to stop collaborating with OpenAI, reviving a debate over whether an OpenAI-advised group had pushed for speed over care.
“Releasing over 700 files at once is not a demonstration of scholarship, but a demonstration of power. We urge mathematicians to discontinue their work with OpenAI and to return to a vision of science that centers human understanding.”
Association for Human MathematicsOpenAI Releasing labAssociation for Human Mathematics Mathematicians' advocacy groupTerence Tao Mathematician
Zvi Mowshowitz Independent AI analyst / blogger
The whole story articlespostscomments the bright band is this development · numbered dots are the others · click one to jump
What was reported 4 claims about this development
-
first by HN Best, 6d ago · also HN Frontpage
-
first by HN Frontpage, 6d ago · also AHM
-
first by What's new, 8d ago
-
first by Lobsters, 8d ago
What people said 24 voices · best of 47 · verbatim
-
“okay, so what? it’s just math.” no, you don't get it. here’s what OpenAI’s math breakthroughs could eventually help make possible in the real world: Vlasov–Maxwell → stronger foundations for fusion research, whose ultimate prize is virtually limitless clean energy to power
-
H
🤮 OpenAI just released 722 AI slop preprints claiming to solve various math problems. It's such an asshole move. I feel sorry for all the human mathematicians who now have to go through this BS and make sense of it. https:// github.com/openai/math/tree/ma in/preprints
-
Mathematical problems are ideal as benchmarks for AI because they have clear problem statements, clear axioms and results that can be verified easily (for lean proofs). I can't blame these companies for using them, although it's unfortunate that human mathematicians seem to become early casualties of AI progress.I suppose openAI could have…
-
Humans in the loop will only bankrupt you if mistakes are cheap. If they're expensive, it is better to go slower and verify correctness than go at the speed of model output. Self-driving is a good example - its expansion has clearly been held back by liability, not capability. A few bad crashes and the company is bankrupt, so the people working…
-
No freaking way. Trusted sources say OpenAI’s release of 722 mathematical manuscripts was just batch 1/3. Rumor has it OpenAI has solved another Millennium Prize Problem. What a wild time to be alive. Feels like an intelligence explosion. Everything, all at once.
-
OpenAI publishes 722 maths papers written by a model it has not released https:// thenextweb.com/news/openai-mat hs-722-papers-unreleased-model-github?utm_source=flipboard&utm_medium=activitypub Posted into TNW - All Stories @ tnw-all-stories-thenextweb
-
> We prove the Unique Games ConjectureThe Unique Games Conjecture (sorry, "Unique Games Theorem" now!) is huge. It was a very significant pillar supporting many of the limits of the polynomial-time approximation algorithms in the graduate-level randomized and approximate algorithms course I took in theoretical computer science.Here is an…
-
The same thing already happened to me over a year ago, so I cannot say I agree. It's just the nature of bottlenecks. Generating huge amounts of code was done first. At that time, that was the bottleneck. So we then had the issue of of who the fuck is going to be verifying it? That's very cumbersome, and boring. Developers where shouting from the…
-
OpenAI announced hundreds of mathematical breakthroughs, stunning the field with the booming capabilities of its technology.
-
It's notable that LLMs have now made substantial progress on four of the seven Millennium Prize problems, resolving one of them: Hodge, Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer, Riemann, and Navier-Stokes, which they resolved. No sign of P vs. NP or Yang-Mills existence and mass gap as far as I can tell, which is interesting.Talking to some friends in physics this…
-
I don't get what your point here is, buddy. Yes, I was probably more ignorant of the propaganda of the past, but the Billionaires are being far less subtle about it now than they were back then. However none of us are ever fully immune. Now that I'm more aware of this, why would I ever want to cede even more control of the truth to an even…
-
This reinforces a point I've made elsewhere that there are talented mathematicians driving the AI to make these discoveries.Just like there are talented software engineers driving the AI to create the software that "it" builds, and talented steel workers, teachers, nurses etc who use computers and other machines to create value all over the…
-
As a millennial, I expected the next generations to be more computer literate. I grew up helping friends build computers, could troubleshoot issues, we all knew SOME html coding, and a lot of us could at least follow instructions to homebrew/jailbreak. As a teacher of the last decade , most students can’t even troubleshoot an issue if the app that…
-
Beyond the reasoning capabilities of the unreleased model and that they can run a large number of agents in parallel, what makes me curious is that the writing of the proofs is quite human-readable. This is in contrast with the scientific text produced by the ChatGPT available to us, which writes horribly in a way that no human would write. One…
-
This proof has not been checked at all. It's lean formalized. And OpenAI recently claimed they solved like, 10 outstanding problems they actually didn’t. You are mistaking 2 different news. OpenAI did solve 10 unsolved math problems in computer science in 2026 with GPT-6 Astra. No one has refuted that, not even your own source. What you are citing…
-
Shameless self-plug: I created an autonomous math researcher. It already solved a 12 year open problem in proof complexity which lead to a publication (and proof complexity experts are already working on simplifications and generalizations of the proof, as I've been told by one of them). This publication is an important step in Cook-Reckhow…
-
Why would we not? I mean we had this discussion already with self driving cars. Yes people do not trust them but that will change and maybe in 10 years we will not trust human drivers. Man I've heard this 10 years ago (from Elon Musk for example) and I'm amazed at how untrue this is, yet is being repeated again and again. It will be a really…
-
It’s incredible and wonderful. Mathematicians in this thread sound very much like software engineers last year, who spent years wrestling with a piece of code and now it just “appears”! But think of the next level that it empowers: new mathematics, new physics, new forms of advanced engineering. What was formerly constricted and throttled fell and…
-
They passed lean so they're internally consistent proofs. We may already be at the point where humans aren't able to verify the proofs because for example, the NS solution was based on more than 20,000 prior proofs. At some point humans won't be able to even validate these solutions which puts us in a situation we've never been in before. What…
-
Incredible stuff.An ex colleague of mine who is a world class mathematician recently got an ERC with ambitious goals to advance his field.Literally every optimistic goal proposed to be worked on during this multi-year window has been solved in this one post. His and his entire group's work has just been done for him! They are all depressed as hell…
-
I wonder how many of these things we would have already solved if we could throw even 0.01% of the compute at research labs. Some of these things they've spent 8+ figures worth of (heavily subsidised) tokens on a single solution, that doesn't actually yield a useful result. Most university researchers are getting low 7 figures of grants over their…
-
would love to know if the proof holds up for real after you're done going through, i don't know why people are more interested in optics and just talking over shallow points, why aren't experts digging into everything and seeing what's true and what's false, instead everyone is just panicking?
-
At some point we need to start treating science and math like sport. Like yeah, you can build a robot that can throw a football father than any human. But I'm not here to see a football go as far as possible, I'm here to see how far a human can throw a football. I don't what to know the totality of math that's out there - I want to know the math…
-
Fascinating. Given that there's no Lean proof and assuming everything in the paper is correct, can the problem be considered "solved"? Does the paper include a "non-Lean" proof?
All 7 developments of OpenAI's 722-paper math dump splits mathematicians, forces… →
NewswiresHacker NewsMastodonRedditXBlueskyGoogle NewsLobsters