An AI tool that gets gold on the IMO is obviously immensely impressive. Does it mean math is “solved”? Is an AI-generated proof of the Riemann hypothesis clearly on the horizon? Obviously not.
Worth keeping timescales in mind here: IMO competitors spend an average of 1.5 hrs on each problem. High-quality math research, by contrast, takes month or years.
What are the obstructions to AI performing high-quality autonomous math research? I don’t claim to know for sure, but I think they include many of the same obstructions that prevent it from doing many jobs: Long context, long-term planning, consistency, unclear rewards, lack of training data, etc.
It’s possible that some or all of these will be solved soon (or have been solved) but I think it’s worth being cautious about over-indexing on recent (amazing) progress.
— Daniel Litt, Assistant Professor of mathematics, University of Toronto
Recent articles
- V&A East Storehouse and Operation Mincemeat in London - 27th August 2025
- The Summer of Johann: prompt injections as far as the eye can see - 15th August 2025
- Open weight LLMs exhibit inconsistent performance across providers - 15th August 2025