Mathematicians Hate AI. They Can’t Quit It

Mathematicians Hate AI. They Can’t Quit It. When Buckmaster went public with his claims, it ignited a firestorm about artificial intelligence and whether it would make human mathematicians obsolete.

What happened

Other mathematicians have raised similar concerns. In an August email, he pointed out that the firm’s assertion that “no progress” had been made on the problem in the last decade overlooked a 2019 paper of his, as well as other mathematicians’ work. Beyond upending attribution, the fact that humans still don’t fully understand each step OpenAI’s agents took to arrive at the Navier-Stokes result also poses existential questions for mathematicians, who see their field slipping from their understanding.

Twenty-five Fields medalists wrote in an open letter that AI companies and mathematicians are “severely misaligned. ” More than 4,000 people have signed the Leiden Declaration, which has a series of recommendations for how mathematicians, funders, and politicians can ensure that AI doesn’t swallow the field. That's what I think most of the mathematicians tend to be worrying about, and I think it's a real issue. ”With no oversight on the horizon and AI further engraining itself in the field, some mathematicians want to find a way to at least tap the brakes.

Any mathematicians—especially early-career researchers—risk being “isolated” if they don’t use AI to accelerate their work, he adds. He and Buckmaster both believe the community needs to start thinking about what the technology means for younger mathematicians and how to smooth the transition.

The wider picture

The next generation of mathematicians is already looking for guidance: Students have also been asking about what their future could look like now that AI is becoming so capable at solving math problems, Townsend says. Buckmaster is calling for a detente in AI-driven mathematics while mathematicians and AI laboratories set some ground rules on how to release results, including getting their references right. He himself is going to clean up the papers he published prematurely last week to beat OpenAI’s announcement, one of which he described as “AI slop. ””I have a responsibility to clean up the papers that I did post that weren't completed, and I think I have a responsibility to explain to mathematicians what we did,” he says.

Lexi PandellOpenAI Is Developing a ‘Persistent’ AI AgentCode reviewed by WIRED reveals the company is developing a feature that enables Codex to continue working proactively until it is “put to sleep. ”Maxwell ZeffThese Russian Mathematicians Taught AI Models How to Talk to Each Other Without Using WordsA startup called Mostik has a wild new approach to combining the capabilities of AI models. Jill DuffyThe AI Researcher Who Just Quit Anthropic Says It’s ‘Crunch Time for Humanity’Jacob Coxon talks to WIRED about the “mini Manhattan project” inside Anthropic, the problem with alignment, and why AI labs have just a few years left to make their systems safe.

Powerful AI models have created an existential risk to the field, but researchers can’t stop relying on them because they’re too useful. Skip to main contentSave this storySave this storyMathematician Tristan Buckmaster believes OpenAI used his work to rush ahead and beat him to solving a legendary math problem with a $1 million bounty. But that’s not been enough for him to stop using the company’s models—and he’s not the only mathematician that feels that way.

What has been reported

“Even if you don't agree with any of this, you're kind of stuck. With AI being so useful, it's hard to completely prevent oneself from using it,” Buckmaster tells WIRED. “These companies have a monopoly, and there is not much choice,” he adds. In the week and half since the New York University professor accused OpenAI of copying his approach, Buckmaster has been using the company’s coding agent Codex to tidy up his research papers.

When he has time to do math (which he says is rare, since the fallout thrust him into the spotlight), the tool has been helping him understand the logical steps OpenAI’s agents might have taken to get from his earlier workings to the final proof. Buckmaster had used Codex as well as Anthropic’s competing Claude to work on what’s known as the Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness problem, alongside Anthropic researcher Levent Alpöge.

OpenAI deployed tens of thousands of agents to reach the solution, but only after it learned the equation was close to being solved, Buckmaster says. It also led OpenAI to do an investigation and amend its announcement about solving Navier-Stokes to say it “confirmed that Buckmaster’s Codex prompts over the two months preceding this announcement and paper on September 8, 2026, could not have influenced the system in any way, including through training. ” The company pointed WIRED to its announcement in an email.

What happens next

Showing that AI was pushing the boundaries of mathematics was “more important than the result,” Buckmaster says. But churning out solutions to long-standing math problems without fully crediting the human work undergirding them—especially ahead of major IPOs—is irresponsible and “childish,” he says. Only a handful of people on the planet understand the techniques in geometric group theory that German mathematician Andreas Thom has dedicated the last two decades to developing. So when OpenAI said in August that its Astra model had used them to prove a long-standing problem he had been working on, “I was amazed,” says Thom.

“And of course I was wondering, how did they learn about it? ”So he says he asked OpenAI researchers Mark Sellke and Sébastien Bubeck. He and a colleague had been using ChatGPT to assist their work on the problem in the months running up to the result, but when he asked if their interactions had been fed into training data, Thom says Sellke replied: “That did not happen. ”“I set it aside,” Thom recalls.

“I'm not so much interested in these political things; I want to work on mathematics. ”While Thom has seen OpenAI’s statement that Buckmaster’s prompts couldn't have influenced the system, he says he doesn’t trust this and concedes he will probably never know whether his work actually fed the result.