On September 1, 2026:
LANCE: I'm surprised you haven't blogged about OpenAI solving 10 open math problems.
BILL: If I post every time an open math problem is solved by AI I won't ever post about anything else.
I'll wait until AI does something really impressive.
LANCE: How impressive does the theorem have to be?
BILL: I'll post about AI doing math once AI solves a Millennium Prize Problem.
LANCE: That might not be for a while.
BILL: Agreed.
-----------------------
On September 8, OpenAI announced it had solved the Millennium Prize Problem on the Navier-Stokes equations.
On September 9, Lance blogged about the result, see here.
So here, at last, is my long-awaited post on math and AI.
--------------------------
In my May 24, 2026 blog post about the Erdős Unit Distance problem being resolved by OpenAI , see here. I suggested two possible futures:
--------------------------------------
ONE: While this AI-generated (or AI-assisted) result is impressive, it will be a rare occurrence. This result was actually a counterexample. The needed math was known. The result was interesting. This is a perfect storm that we might not see again for a while.
TWO: Even before the AI revolution, when I came up with a math problem I wanted solved, I would seek help, perhaps too early. My curiosity far exceeds my ego. Since AI makes it easy to get help, my fear is that eventually we will all be Bill Gasarch---scary.
-----------------------------------
Option ONE did not age well.
1) Rare occurrence? In August 2026, OpenAI solved ten math problems; see here.
2) Only counterexamples? The distinction between proving a conjecture and finding a counterexample may be an illusion. Even the disproof of the Erdos Distance Conjecture had to find an infinite number of counterexamples, which is close to a for-all statement.
3) The needed math was known? To say that AI will only solve problems where the needed math is known seems odd. I suspect 99% of all theorems use math that is already known.
4) The result was interesting? All ten math problems OpenAI solved do all seem interesting. Or, more rigorously, there exists N large (maybe around 100) such that, for all P, where P is one of the ten problems, there exists at least N people who care about P.
------------------------------
Other Points
1) On Aug 12 Terry Tao posted here about Sendov's conjecture: Let \(n\ge 2\) and let \(p \colon C \rightarrow C \) be a degree \(n\) polynomial with zeros in the unit disk. Then for every zero a of \(p\), there exists a critical point \(\zeta\) with \( |\zeta - a | \le 1\)
a) The conjecture for \(n\le 8\) was known.
b) Terry Tao had shown that the conjecture was true for large \(n\). No lower bound on \(n\) was known.
c) Lech Mazur was able to use an AI tool to resolve the conjecture. See here
d) The post by Terry Tao was a digestion of the proof.Digestion is just the right term. I nominate it for word of the year for 2026.
2) This may be the future: AI assists us but we still need to digest the proofs.
3) Will we bother with the digestion? Or will we be like students who use ChatGPT to do the homework and then do not read it carefully enough to learn anything from it?
Perhaps future papers will be in two parts: the proof, and the proof that the author actually read the proof.
4) Might we all become embodiments of the Chinese Room? We ask AI a math question, it supplies the proof, and we rewrite the proof without really understanding it.
5) I hope we will all be Terry Tao: digest the proofs and maintain understanding.
6) The four color theorem: the basic idea was human-understandable, but a program was needed to check an enormous number of cases (even in the later proof). Question: Are there any results where all we have is that a program said it was true and we lack the basic idea? Of course, many proofs in math were done by humans, but I do not understand the basic idea.
That is, has this SMBC cartoon happened yet: see here
7) Riemann: I quote Wikipedia (see here)
In August 2026, an unreleased research version of the Anthropic's large language model Claude working interactively with human researchers, proved unconditionally that at least two-thirds (66.6%) of the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function lie on the critical line.[44] Using an optimized test family, this bound has been improved to
\(\frac{3}{2} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\cot(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})\sim 67.25\%\).
Is this progress towards a solution? Is RH going to be solved soon?
8) The Navier-Stokes equation problem. Very roughly, the question asks if a certain class of equations always has a smooth solution. OpenAI has announced that they found a counterexample. There are some issues with this. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia entry on the NS equations (see here)
The announcement [by OpenAI] was accompanied by a priority dispute with Levent Alpoge (employed at a rival AI company Anthropic) and Tristan Buckmaster, who derived a set of closely related results on the Euler equations. The method used to generate the claimed solution built upon a method developed by Diego Corboda and Luis Martinez Zoroa in 2023 to prove blowup phenomena in related fluid equations.
(ChatGPT wanted me to say Is the result AI-assisted or AI-generated rather than assert that it is AI-assisted.)
9) Could Alpoge and Buckmaster have solved the problem?
(The name Alpoge looked familiar to me so I searched the blog to see if I had mentioned him before. I had! He was the first person to prove that the primes are infinite using Ramsey theory. See that post here.)
10) Will people be scared to use AI when they are beginning to work on a proof for fear that AI will scoop them?
11) OpenAI has said it will not try to collect the money. This is the SECOND Millennium Prize Problem where the solver turned down the money, though for different reasons. I do wonder what will happen the next time AI solves a problem worth money---who gets the money? Perhaps the prize should go to whoever can explain the proof to the prize committee.
12) Shortly after the story broke Terry Tao had a blog post on it. He later had some guest posts about Math and AI. I was going to point to Terry Tao's posts and guest posts, but you can all use Google to find those posts, or ask ChatGPT to summarize them.
13) What about disclosing that you used AI for a paper?
Perhaps in the future 'written with AI assistance' will sound like written with a word processor.
My proofreader points out that predicting the future is stupid since most people can't even figure out what the present is.
14) PhD students in math will use AI (they probably already are). AI will produce proofs that the students could not have found themselves. Do they deserve a PhD if they can digest those proofs and rewrite them in an understandable way? I think the answer has to be YES: banning AI will be both impossible and undesirable.
Asking math PhD students to understand their own thesis might actually make getting a PhD harder.
By gasarch
On September 1, 2026:
LANCE: I'm surprised you haven't blogged about OpenAI solving 10 open math problems.
BILL: If I post every time an open math problem is solved by AI I won't ever post about anything else.
I'll wait until AI does something really impressive.
LANCE: How impressive does the theorem have to be?
BILL: I'll post about AI doing math once AI solves a Millennium Prize Problem.
LANCE: That might not be for a while.
BILL: Agreed.
-----------------------
On September 8, OpenAI announced it had solved the Millennium Prize Problem on the Navier-Stokes equations.
On September 9, Lance blogged about the result, see here.
So here, at last, is my long-awaited post on math and AI.
--------------------------
In my May 24, 2026 blog post about the Erdős Unit Distance problem being resolved by OpenAI , see here. I suggested two possible futures:
--------------------------------------
ONE: While this AI-generated (or AI-assisted) result is impressive, it will be a rare occurrence. This result was actually a counterexample. The needed math was known. The result was interesting. This is a perfect storm that we might not see again for a while.
TWO: Even before the AI revolution, when I came up with a math problem I wanted solved, I would seek help, perhaps too early. My curiosity far exceeds my ego. Since AI makes it easy to get help, my fear is that eventually we will all be Bill Gasarch---scary.
-----------------------------------
Option ONE did not age well.
1) Rare occurrence? In August 2026, OpenAI solved ten math problems; see here.
2) Only counterexamples? The distinction between proving a conjecture and finding a counterexample may be an illusion. Even the disproof of the Erdos Distance Conjecture had to find an infinite number of counterexamples, which is close to a for-all statement.
3) The needed math was known? To say that AI will only solve problems where the needed math is known seems odd. I suspect 99% of all theorems use math that is already known.
4) The result was interesting? All ten math problems OpenAI solved do all seem interesting. Or, more rigorously, there exists N large (maybe around 100) such that, for all P, where P is one of the ten problems, there exists at least N people who care about P.
------------------------------
Other Points
1) On Aug 12 Terry Tao posted here about Sendov's conjecture: Let \(n\ge 2\) and let \(p \colon C \rightarrow C \) be a degree \(n\) polynomial with zeros in the unit disk. Then for every zero a of \(p\), there exists a critical point \(\zeta\) with \( |\zeta - a | \le 1\)
a) The conjecture for \(n\le 8\) was known.
b) Terry Tao had shown that the conjecture was true for large \(n\). No lower bound on \(n\) was known.
c) Lech Mazur was able to use an AI tool to resolve the conjecture. See here
