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)

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

This group of Mathematicians just happens to be more willing to accept the inevitable and adapt. I would actually say software engineers, being amongst the earliest impacted by AI after creatives, clearly have adapted to the new reality much more broadly as evidenced by online discourse and coding agent providers' skyrocketing revenues.

The 3D designers are in a tougher situation because it's far less of abstract issue then math, and yet the results are astounding. It's hard to believe until you see it yourself. It's surreal.

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.

I actually want to see interesting theories and mathematical ideas come out of proofs more than I want solutions/proofs. After all most maths doesn't have direct practical applications. So although unsolved problems are a good barometer of 'there's still stuff left to understand here', the interesting part about solving them is less knowing what is true and more 'how does this help us understand this field better than we did before?'.

I would still like to know if the Riemann Hypothesis is true though!

Or are you perhaps sublimating your own AI anxiety into confrontational assertions that other people who discuss AI aren't as AI-pilled as you?

There are typically processes to ensure rigor in the findings and to weed out crap.

It doesn't always work, but it tends to work much better than any other community