Security & Threat Intelligence · 28.08.2026, 13:21 UTC
AI Doesn’t Mean the End of Mathematics—at Least Not Yet
| Schweregrad | info |
|---|---|
| Kategorie | Security & Threat Intelligence |
| Quelle | Schneier on Security ↗ |
| Veröffentlicht | 28.08.2026 UTC |
Sicherheitsmeldung mit Schweregrad noch nicht bewertet. Technische Details im Tab „Originaltext“; empfohlene Schritte in der Checkliste.
This essay was written with Kasra Rafi, and originally appeared in The Guardian. Earlier this month, about 40 top mathematicians gathered at OpenAI’s offices to discuss the future of their profession. The meeting was off-the-record, but if recent articles by mathematicians are any guide, it was mostly pretty glum. People fear for their jobs, their careers and the work they love. We think the contrary view is more likely, at least in the short-term. AI models are nowhere near as capable as experienced academic mathematicians. This isn’t to say that AIs aren’t producing stunning mathematical results at the level of PhD researchers. In mid-May, OpenAI announced that its frontier AI model disproved the unit distance conjecture, a famous 80-year-old problem in discrete geometry. In July, Anthropic’s published two AI-derived results in academic cryptanalysis. Earlier this month, OpenAI published 10 new mathematical results from its latest AI model. And Anthropic published Claude’s attempt to prove the century-and-a-half-old Riemann hypothesis. These results are both a vivid demonstration of the amazing capabilities of frontier AI in 2026 and an illustration of their limitations. In general, these AI-powered advances in mathematics fall into one of two categories. Some are counterexamples to mathematical statements that people had been trying to prove. Others are novel applications of known techniques to existing problems that human experts either did not know or did not think of using. The counterexample to the Jacobian conjecture is the most notable example of the first kind. …