33
Mathematicians are grappling with the possibility that AI might eclipse them
(www.understandingai.org)
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2026
33 points (69.4% liked)
Technology
87515 readers
3001 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Scientists don't often publish when they confirm an article is correct. Knowing a few mathematicians, probably they see no need to do that. They checked the proof, it was ok and that's it.
Either way, many of those proofs come with a computer program which checks and confirms the proof is correct.
I trust that an expert mathematician talking about such things has reviewed a few of those articles and has checked the proof.
You may not do that; check the proof yourself or pay a mathematician to do it for you.
This sounds like something you outright made up.
Classical unsolved math problems have rewards.
Mathematics absolutely have peer review:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28029799/
Indeed peer reviewed exists in mathematics. Now, whether it is common practice to publish stuff on arxiv and leave it there is another thing.
I don't know about mathematics, but I know plenty other Fields where it is common practice to just publish on arxiv.