Mathematician rebuts "end of mathematics" hype: superhuman proofs ≠ proof abundance ≠ math without humans
Ognifedefingo · x · 2026-08-23
In the debate sparked by Daniel Litt's "The End of Mathematics," mathematician @Ognifedefingo lays out a stepwise rebuttal: the data only support "AI will be superhuman at certain types of proofs." Huge gaps separate that from "proof abundance," from proof abundance to "AI superhuman at all of math," and yet another immense leap to "mathematics without humans" — yet many famous names have been extrapolating very freely from the data for months.
In the same thread, Litt defends that his post said the opposite of "close up shop" and challenges anyone to name a person making that claim; Jacob's position, as Litt reads it, is merely that the parts of math academia Jacob personally enjoys will soon be done cheaply by models — very different from the field shutting down. The mathematician adds that while young mathematicians feeling disheartened is understandable, the community's contribution to society is not just new results, but existing as rigorous, curious, anti-rhetorical, slow-paced thinkers.
More from AGI Musings
- Intelligence is proportional to data: reorder tasks by data volume and the jagged frontier becomes a spiral — sebkrier · 2026-10-16
- "Vibecoding" is as misleading a label as "AI" and "SI," dev complains — eschadiol · 2026-10-16
- Reviewer will decline papers largely written by AI, citing author effort — IanArawjo · 2026-10-16
- AI-written cold emails hit a wall: Pragmatic Engineer's reply gets templated AI response — marktenenholtz · 2026-10-16
- Ben Bajarin: Enterprise Agentic Adoption Is Infant-Stage, Spend Could Top $1T a Year — BenBajarin · 2026-10-16
- UMD Philosophy hires: junior Philosophy of Mind and joint AI Ethics/Safety positions — sethlazar · 2026-10-16