logoalt Hacker News

ipdashctoday at 7:55 PM3 repliesview on HN

I knew mathematicians were a smart bunch, but honestly, the events of the past few weeks have really given me a new level of respect for them.

They might be the first community I've seen to experience the AI "rush" and (at least as presented to an outside observer) immediately come together, assess the situation, and calmly, empathetically, and rationally act. They evaluated what AI is good at and what it lacks. They've thought through how it'll likely affect their field in the future. They've explained where the need for humans still lies, and made clear proposals for how to change their own field and for what demands to make of AI companies. Of course they're not all on the same page, but they're at least talking and trying.

They haven't started worshipping the machine god and loudly claiming their whole field is solved. Nor have they flailed wildly at LLMs as if complaining enough about it will make them go away.

Every major statement I've seen come out of the math community on this matter reads as well thought-through, humble, reasoned, and deeply human.

In these days of fear, uncertainty, and obsolescence anxiety, honestly, they've given me some confidence that maybe we will figure this stuff out after all. Maybe we'll learn from them. Who knows.


Replies

bananaflagtoday at 8:11 PM

> I knew mathematicians were a smart bunch, but honestly, the events of the past few weeks have really given me a new level of respect for them.

As a mathematician, I am a bit disappointed by my (admittedly illustrious) colleagues.

I get the need to take it slowly (and I am a quite impatient person, so I shouldn't get to decide stuff like this), but everything said feels a bit too sour grapes for my taste.

Ok, maybe AI did not solve the field (I believe it will, btw), maybe there is a need for human "understanding", but:

1) They don't seem to consider even the possibility (not the certainty) that they might be wrong, that math as we know it is gone, and we cannot "adapt"

2) They seem to have been oblivious all these years about AI eventually reaching this point (at least I personally wasn't, I predicted this stage back in 2018)

show 2 replies
ksd482today at 8:02 PM

Agreed.

Their field is extremely rigorous. As rigorous as it can possibly get in that they have to prove each and every line of their work beyond any doubt. The discipline they have cultivated in their culture shows in their response to AI as well.

As opposed to some other fields in which rigor was either not part of the culture or was not always possible. For e.g., software engineering in terms of code quality being produced. There were some indirect signals here and there but they are all subjective.

bamb008today at 8:04 PM

>Every major statement I've seen come out of the math community on this matter reads as well thought-through, humble, reasoned, and deeply human.

Can't disagree with "deeply human", but I wouldn't always use it in a positive sense:

https://proofsandprompts.com/2026/09/10/open-letter-about-th...

>Participation in an event so closely associated with Anthropic and OpenAI could plausibly negatively impact the future reputations of participants