This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This does not quite fall under culture wars, but I thought it's still relevant given that it's a big story.
On October 6, OpenAI released a large batch of mathematical results, with more than 700 manuscripts covering hundreds of problems: Sharing AI progress in mathematics.
This has led to another round of controversy and discussion about AI making mathematicians obsolete or disrupting research programs that people have spent years working on. The Verge covers some of these reactions in “Mathematicians will need years to make sense of OpenAI’s latest drop”.
Many of the results are still being checked, but the release has called into question if mathematics can survive as a profession, or what purpose it serves if machines can outpace humans. Research programs have supposedly been gutted by these results. "Careers ruined," as the narrative goes. I think that is an exaggeration or overreaction. There are thousands of mathematicians and their interests are very wide ranging. The odds of someone's research program or problem being "solved" by AI are very small.
I don't see anything changing much. The status quo of journals and academia will remain intact even with rapid progress in AI, save for the occasional breakthrough in an unsolved problem. What is overlooked or ignored is the massive gap between cotemporary research-level math vs. LLM-produced math. A math PhD program, especially from a good school, teaches or guides future researchers towards productive areas of research that are of interest to the "math community," rather than results that are merely "personally interesting". AI cannot recreate such communities or networks.
AI is great for generating computation-laden results on-the-fly, but research-level math is more concerned with abstractions and relations between them, than crunching. I recall one example where ChatGPT’s Astra program tried to pass off a finite computational cutoff as a “theorem.” Um, you can't do that unless you prove that the bound is sufficient.
To test this, I produced some AI papers which I thought were great and novel, and the AI said so, and journals rejected them (although others are still pending at various stages of peer review). I had some knowledge in said area and could assess novelty, but still not good enough. I don't see laypeople doing better in this regard, although could be wrong. I ran my ideas through the Ai and got 12 papers out of it, which saved considerable time had I written them myself. It also found non-obvious connections and results. I am really satisfied with the results, but does this meet the bar for publication? Time will tell. I bet not.
Also, success is heavily dependent on the prompt. It's not as easy as blindly prompting something. I made a post about that https://greyenlightenment.com/2026/10/11/the-nuance-the-math-debate-is-missing/ I suspect many of these successful proofs were prompted by experts who knew what to look for, rather than just naively trying. What is touted by the media as an AI breakthrough, may involve surgically precise prompting in the background by an expert in said field.
Alluding to the "airplane meme," there is also survivorship bias: you don't see all the failed attempts with AI . Sometimes it works great, but other times hit or miss. Presumably , the "top unsolved problems" have been queried by frontier models and using large token budget, with few proofs to show for it (save for the Open AI "dump").
It would be cool to see AI truly shake -up math and breathe new life into ignored areas, but that is not going to happen, imho. But I do see AI leading to a 2-track system of decentralized preprints and GitHub repositories of AI-produced results, alongside established academia and journals. They will coexist, rather than the later being obsolete. Overall, mathematicians don't have to fear losing their jobs anytime soon (unless of course you happen to have the precise problem you are working on scooped by AI, and even then, your skills would presumably transfer to new problems.
This is true. But not because they haven't been obsoleted. They have. Rather because most of them work in industries that do not generally fire useless people.
I don't say this with any joy. I absolutely respect the mammoth intellectual ability of top mathematicians. Chess players too.
But their services are no longer required. If I need someone to explain a mathematical result to me, I will ask an AI.
Well, what does it mean to be obsoleted?
Viewed from one lens, chess players were obsoleted by DeepBlue and Go players by AlphaGo a long time ago. If you want the best chess sparring partner, your phone can trivially outclass the best humans alive without any reason to ever play another human being.
Viewed from another lens, human chess and go has been exploding in popularity over the last few years; there are likely many more people who play chess and go now when compared to two decades ago, and it would be ridiculous to claim the human acts of playing chess or go are obsoleted. In practice, the best human players are still high status and make a lot of money, while the overwhelming supremacy of Stockfish is free and generates almost no economic value.
For those who had dreams of being the greatest chess player on the planet or etching their name into history as the next Euler, then I'm sure losing to the computer is a blow to the ego, but realistically this wasn't on the table for the vast majority of even the best chess players or mathematicians alive, AI or not.
There's no reason why the human practice of mathematics can't reorient itself around the supremacy of AI while continuing to draw down salaries and playing petty academic status games; god knows none of it was any practical importance in the end.
I would say that chess is analogous to track and field: You are competing against other people. The fact that there are machines which can move faster that Usain Bolt doesn't really diminish his accomplishments.
Is pure math like this as well? Not at the moment, it seems. Once they graduate college, the way mathematicians gain status is not by winning math contests, but instead by being the first person to come up with and publish an elegant way to prove or disprove some significant unsolved problem. And AI threatens to take this away.
How would that look? Would there be an International Math Olympiad for adults, with problems generated and graded by an AI? I'm not saying that you're wrong, by the way.
Probably much like it does right now, a mathematical priestly caste who spend their lives training to understand and disseminate the arcane knowledge of frontier mathematics.
Even prior to AI, modern pure mathematics was already impenetrable to 99.99% of the population, and even mathematicians of different disciplines mostly struggled to understand each other's work.
Now that we have AI it's really no different; nearly everyone has no ability to even approach the starting line of understanding the superb works of the AI, and it's mostly through the lens of mathematicians that we assign value and meaning to the new results. I don't see why such a dynamic can't continue once the mathematicians manage to reconstruct their shattered egos.
I see a potential problems with this. So what if there is an important unsolved problem of mathematics and before a member of the priestly caste solves it, Joe Blow from his basement publishes an elegant proof online which resolves the problem. Would Joe Blow simply be ignored? Would credit (and the Field Medal) go to whatever priest is the first to copy Joe Blow's paper?
Of course a more likely outcome is that each professional mathematician will use his own AI system, sort of like Gary Kasparov's concept of "power chess" back in the day. A human master to make big strategic decisions and a computer for tactical analysis. Except that power chess didn't last -- the computers got too good for humans to be of any use.
Ok, so what would an international chess championship look like if each player were free to use whatever computer assistance he wanted? It seems like it wouldn't confer much status on the winner. In any event he wouldn't be seen as a great chess player.
Let's put the question this way:
In a post-AI world, how would it be decided which mathematicians win the Fields Medal?
To me, it's kind of like asking what happens if an amateur managed to prove the Riemann hypothesis or a billionaire self-funded a cure to Alzheimers; perhaps it's possible in theory, but in practice if it was so easy it would already have been done.
We can see that even pre-AI the romantic idea of another Ramanujan arising from outside the establishment was risible in reality, and now post-AI all of the most significant advances are being made with the contribution of some of the smartest mathematicians in the world backed by internal models and enormous amounts of compute; I see no reason for this trend not to continue.
In some senses it's not really all that surprising. It's already impossible to push the frontier in biology or physics without significant amounts of capital backing and a decade of training to even begin to understand a tiny fraction of the existing frontier; mathematicians will just have to deal with this reality as well. The fields medal is kind of a symbol of the mathematical fetish of youth and the lone genius, which AI is now killing for good; see Terence Tao on the end of the age of heroes.
So in your view, they would probably just stop awarding Fields Medals?
If the Nobel Prize is any indication, they'll probably keep awarding them, but much like modern scientific Nobels they'll become increasingly divorced from being awarded for the flashes of brilliance of individual people, and lean towards being awarded to people at the head of massive agglomerations of capital.
People just really like venerating figureheads and leaders, and I doubt this will ever change.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link