Mathematicians Hate AI. They Can’t Quit It | WIREDSkip to main contentTHE WIRED APP IS HEREDOWNLOAD NOW »MenuWIREDSECURITYPOLITICSTHE BIG STORYBUSINESSSCIENCECULTUREREVIEWSMenuWIREDAccountAccountNewslettersSecurityPoliticsThe Big StoryBusinessScienceCultureReviewsChevronMoreExpandThe Big InterviewMagazineEventsWIRED InsiderWIRED ConsultingNewslettersPodcastsVideoLivestreamsWIRED StoreSearchSearchIsabella WardScienceSep 19, 2026 6:00 AMMathematicians Feel Threatened by AI. They Can’t Quit ItPowerful AI models have created an existential risk to the field, but researchers can’t stop relying on them because they’re too useful.Photo-Illustration: Wired Staff; Getty ImagesCommentLoaderSave StorySave this storyCommentLoaderSave 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.“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.When Buckmaster went public with his claims, it ignited a firestorm about artificial intelligence and whether it would make human mathematicians obsolete. 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.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.Other mathematicians have raised similar concerns. 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. 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. The company amended its press release. 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.“AI really kills this entire idea that you could trace back who contributed what,” he says. “That is probably over.”It’s a big change from how science is typically done, with academics subjecting their findings to peer review and building on each others’ work with credit. 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."If I want to make a contribution to mathematics, how do I do that as just a human nowadays when these trillion-dollar companies are in on the game?" says Cornell mathematician Alex Townsend, the coauthor of a forthcoming book on the field’s evolution.Since August, Townsend has seen many of his colleagues start to ask what they need to know about the technology and how they can set up subscriptions to access higher-powered models."I feel both excited and nervous simultaneously," Townsend says. "Excited because I can achieve things that I couldn't achieve without it, and nervous because I'm questioning: 'OK, what's my purpose here?'"Thom accepts that his area of study is changing, and has continued to use ChatGPT—with updated privacy settings to stop his work being used to train the data—to speed up writing papers because it is “extremely efficient.” (OpenAI’s offerings through universities and at the enterprise level default to not training models on users’ data.)“If a human had actively done that, then I would be very, very angry,” he says of someone using his work without attribution. But if information was pulled into the model through a back door, by an algorithm which nobody fully understands, “I could probably live with that,” he says.Some mathematicians are less forgiving. 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.Buckmaster fears the possibility of using AI to “clean up some of your grammar, and suddenly your years of work [could be] gobbled up in user data and sold to another mathematician or grad student. 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. That includes more than 2,000 people with ties to Caltech who called on organizers of an AI math hackathon at the school to suspend the event. The hackathon was sponsored by Anthropic and OpenAI, though the latter has since dropped out. But any attempts to slow things down may be for naught, especially in the long term.“I don't think this is really sustainable because of the efficiency gain” that AI offers, says Thom. 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 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.He’s also open to discussing this with OpenAI. “I don't want to just engage in fights” he says. As for whether he would ever actually work on a problem with the company, “we have to be careful with that,” he says with a wry smile.CommentsBack to topJoin the discussionCommentsBack to topTriangleYou Might Also LikeIn your inbox: Maxwell Zeff's dispatch on the business of AIWhy normal people aren’t using AI agentsBig Story: How data centers broke American politicsHackers stalked me by hijacking a cheap pink plastic watchSpecial edition: The WIRED guide to expanding your mindTopicsartificial intelligencemathmathematicsChatGPTRead MoreOpenAI Just Claimed a Huge Math Discovery. Some Academics Are Crying FoulA landmark announcement by the frontier AI lab has been overshadowed by accusations of impropriety.Will KnightWhy So Many AI Researchers Think the Machines Could Kill EveryoneA combination of rapid advances, recursive self-improvement, and agentic swarms are genuinely “spooking people” inside big labs.Will Knight‘I’m Really Terrified’: A Mathematician Grapples With AI’s Recent BreakthroughsSteven Strogatz coauthored a book about how math is moving beyond human understanding. He spoke with WIRED about the seismic impact artificial intelligence has had on his life’s work.Isabella WardPangram Has Emerged as the Gold Standard of AI Detection. Should You Trust It?Meet the AI police who can make or break careers—in publishing and beyond.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.Will KnightOpenAI Cut Off a Billion-Dollar Customer to Avoid Elon MuskOpenAI recently estimated its Cursor partnership would make more than $1 billion in revenue a year, WIRED has learned. It still walked away after Elon Musk’s SpaceX acquired the AI coding startup.Maxwell ZeffWhat We Still Don’t Know About OpenAI’s Hugging Face HackThe AI giant acknowledges that it could have done far more to prevent its AI agents from going rogue. But it still fails to explain why it didn't see this fiasco coming.Maxwell ZeffWho Cares if AI Is Conscious—It’s Basically AliveWhile philosophers ponder AI consciousness, the models have ideas of their own.Steven LevyThis Is How Anthropic Thinks AI Agents Should Navigate the Physical WorldThe potential for AI to automate scientific research and manufacturing must be balanced with new risks, Anthropic says.Will KnightAI Use in the Job Market Is Creating an Infinite Doom LoopJob seekers are trying to game the application process using AI. It’s not working, and not for the reasons you might think.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.Maxwell ZeffWIRED is obsessed with what comes next. Through rigorous investigations and game-changing reporting, we tell stories that don’t just reflect the moment—they help create it. When you look back in 10, 20, even 50 years, WIRED will be the publication that led the story of the present, mapped the people, products, and ideas defining it, and explained how those forces forged the future. WIRED: For Future Reference.More From WIREDSubscribeNewslettersDownload the WIRED AppLivestreamsTravelFAQContact UsWIRED StaffWIRED EducationEditorial StandardsArchiveRSSSite MapAccessibility HelpReviews and GuidesReviewsBuying GuidesStreaming GuidesCouponsAdvertiseManage AccountJobsPress CenterCondé Nast StoreUser AgreementPrivacy PolicyYour California Privacy Rights© 2026 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Ad ChoicesSelect international siteUnited StatesLargeChevronItaliaJapónCzech Republic & SlovakiaFacebookXPinterestYouTubeInstagramTiktok

Powerful artificial intelligence models have introduced existential risks and profound challenges to the field of mathematics, leading many researchers to feel threatened by their utility. Mathematician Tristan Buckmaster, for instance, expressed concern that the reliance on these models creates an accountability gap, particularly when AI agents derive solutions from prior human work. Buckmaster recounted his experience using the coding agent Codex to refine his research papers, and he noted that this process raised questions about whether the resulting solutions fully credited the underlying human contributions, suggesting that churning out results without proper attribution is irresponsible. This issue extends to broader concerns regarding the process itself; some mathematicians worry that the very mechanisms by which AI agents arrive at proofs obscure the chain of contribution, challenging the traditional scientific practice of peer review and acknowledgment.

Similar concerns have been raised regarding proprietary knowledge and data inclusion. German mathematician Andreas Thom, while working on geometric group theory, questioned how AI systems, such as OpenAI's Astra model, learned complex results from specialized, niche mathematics. Thom indicated skepticism about the assurances provided by AI companies regarding the privacy of user interactions, suggesting that the capability of AI to absorb and utilize mathematical knowledge without clear traceability fundamentally undermines the principle of attributing intellectual work. This dynamic forces a reevaluation of how mathematical advancement is documented and credited.

The evolving landscape prompts significant philosophical and practical questions for the mathematical community. Alex Townsend, a coauthor of a book on the field’s evolution, articulated a simultaneous feeling of excitement and nervousness regarding the integration of AI. While acknowledging the immense potential for achieving breakthroughs previously unattainable, Townsend grappled with questions about purpose in an environment where trillion-dollar entities dominate the technological sphere. These discussions extend to the next generation, as students inquire about their future prospects given AI’s increasing capability in problem-solving.

Mathematicians are responding to these shifts through various actions, including advocacy for greater oversight. A significant body of mathematicians, including twenty-five Fields medalists, have articulated concerns about misalignment between AI development and mathematical integrity. This sentiment has crystallized in initiatives such as the Leiden Declaration, which proposes recommendations for ensuring that AI development does not overshadow the field. Furthermore, some have attempted to slow down the pace of development, exemplified by efforts like organizing hackathons to establish ground rules for result release. Buckmaster has called for a detente in AI-driven mathematics, emphasizing the need to establish standards for referencing and ensuring that human contributions are recognized. Although some, like Thom, concede that stopping the technological evolution is impractical due to efficiency gains, the community recognizes the need to manage this transition responsibly, ensuring that the focus remains on human understanding and contribution.