Elite mathematicians escalate complaints against OpenAI over proof attribution and research practices

An open letter bearing the signatures of twenty-five prominent mathematicians—all recipients of the Fields Medal, mathematics' highest honor—raises alarm about AI laboratories competing to crack celebrated unsolved problems in the field. The mathematicians contend that this competitive dynamic undermines the intellectual foundations of their discipline.

The dispute intensified this week when Tristan Buckmaster, a professor at NYU, publicly alleged that OpenAI had discouraged him from acknowledging an Anthropic employee's contribution to resolving a significant mathematical problem. Buckmaster also questioned whether OpenAI had leveraged prior collaborative work involving Codex to develop its own major mathematical breakthrough, which was reportedly completed over an intensive computational session.

OpenAI responded by pulling its financial backing from a mathematics conference at CalTech, following pushback from researchers affiliated with the institution.

Though AI systems' capacity to tackle outstanding mathematical questions could benefit society broadly, the letter's authors maintain that such benefits materialize only when solutions receive rigorous examination and proper documentation by the mathematical community and the wider public.

Often these solutions are announced in a rush, leaving no time for a proper writeup, the isolation of new methods and ideas, and citing relevant previous work of others. As in all creative professions, this raises severe attribution and plagiarism questions. Moreover, without the willing mathematicians who must take care of their development and integration into the mathematical canon, AI-conceived ideas would never become fully alive and the crucial human transmission chain between mathematicians would be lost.

The open letter signatories

OpenAI's mathematical proof has not undergone independent verification. The signatories emphasize that the rush to announce breakthroughs prevents adequate documentation, extraction of novel techniques, and proper attribution of prior contributions.

Anxiety is spreading among mathematicians about whether their own use of Codex might have been incorporated into OpenAI's subsequent models. This concern reflects a deeper worry: that the collaborative, transparent culture defining mathematical research could give way to secrecy. If major AI companies can invest tens of millions of dollars to outpace original researchers and claim credit for discoveries, the incentive structure shifts dramatically toward keeping work hidden.

This latest letter builds on the Leiden Declaration, a statement issued in June by a consortium of mathematicians. That earlier document similarly examines how LLM-generated proofs will reshape mathematical practice and proposes guidance for researchers, universities, and government bodies.

Like software development and other domains where AI is reshaping how people work, mathematics reveals a crucial distinction: the real value lies not merely in the final answer or who receives recognition, but in the broader intellectual ecosystem—the mentorship of new researchers, the generation of fresh questions, and the weaving of discoveries into human knowledge.

The issues the mathematical community faces now are similar to issues that other scientific and creative professions are facing, and indicate issues that all of humanity might face: how to make sure that, as AI changes the way work is done, we do not lose sight of what that work was meant to achieve in the first place.

The open letter signatories

The mathematicians' warning carries implications far beyond their discipline, signaling that other fields may soon confront comparable tensions as artificial intelligence reshapes professional practice.