The frontrunner for the most arrogant, tone-deaf remark of 2026 comes from the Association of Human Mathematics (AHM). Upon OpenAI’s announcement that its model had solved 90 of math’s 500 hardest open problems, AHM released a furious denunciation: “Mathematicians did not ask for this work to be done.”
Yeah? So what? Who cares what they asked for?
Mathematicians study math — they don’t own it.
Because the opposite is true: Most of them work for us. More than half of all U.S. mathematicians are directly employed by the federal government. Another 12% are paid by colleges.
Just 18% are employed in aerospace, manufacturing, and professional services!
To quote Gen X philosopher Alanis Morissette, “Isn’t it ironic?” By the numbers, mathematics is one of our country’s most heavily subsidized industries. Only a small sliver of its jobs are in the private sector. The discipline is utterly incapable of paying for itself.
So mathematicians survive by suckling the government teat.
That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Hey, government waste is an open secret, but some government investments pay off. (Really!) Perhaps mathematics will be one of them.
The mathematicians certainly think so. Here’s a Reddit thread on the topic:
For decades, the case for funding math research was simple: it pays off for you, society, and everyone.
- 1984, the US "David Report" (the landmark math funding report): "the high technology so celebrated today is essentially a mathematical technology." Federal math research funding rose 34%.
- 1992, International Mathematical Union (IMU): one of its official aims was "Mathematics, keys for Development."
- 1997, NSF: "broader impacts," meaning benefit to society, became a required criterion for every grant proposal.
- 2012, UK: a Deloitte study commissioned by the research council credited math research with about 16% of UK economic output and 2.8M jobs.
- 2018, UK Bond Review: math is "arguably the single most pervasive and powerful engine of innovation." A £300M government pledge followed in 2020.
- 2021, IMU/UNESCO: the International Day of Mathematics theme was "Mathematics for a Better World."
So maybe mathematics is worth the taxpayers’ investment. Maybe, as famed “mental calculator” Shakuntala Devi said, “Without mathematics, there’s nothing you can do. Everything around you is mathematics. Everything around you is numbers.”
Maybe mathematics is key to maximizing not just human progress — but mastering all the mysteries of the universe!
If so, why are the mathematicians’ undies in a trefoil knot over OpenAI answering 90 unsolved math problems? Wouldn’t you assume they’d be excited — because progress is progress, and advancing knowledge is a good thing?
Who cares if the answers came from an 11-year-old whiz kid, a tenured MIT professor, or ChatGPT? Would it matter if Einstein’s revelations came to him in a lab — or in a dream?
Because the point of the mission isn’t the journey. Professional mathematicians may crave a rollicking, number-crunching adventure — replete with debates, published papers, and dueling personalities — but that’s not why taxpayers are underwriting their profession.
We’re in it for the destination: More knowledge. Superior insights. New data. Useful information. Faster breakthroughs. And a better, smarter, more prosperous tomorrow.
This is why AHM’s public statement on OpenAI was so eye-opening:
Yesterday, on October 6th, 2026, OpenAI — which is currently defending lawsuits against accusations of illegal plagiarism, copyright infringement, and trademark dilution — released a repository of manuscripts purporting to contain solutions to a number of high-profile problems in mathematics.
Mathematicians did not ask for this work to be done. The Advisory Group on Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, from whom OpenAI has claimed to derive its legitimacy, opened their initial advisory statement by saying that frontier AI corporations should not test advanced mathematical problems on internal models. In ignoring the central premise of the Advisory Group’s position, OpenAI has indicated total disregard for the norms of scientific research — norms that guarantee that mathematics remains trustworthy, ethically researched, and in the public interest.
Mathematicians have a particular vision of progress that is informed by history and field-specific considerations. We reject OpenAI’s assertion that this release advances our subject, and we urge mathematicians and the public to view the value of this publication model with due skepticism.
Releasing over 700 files at once is not a demonstration of scholarship, but a demonstration of power. We urge mathematicians to discontinue their work with OpenAI and to return to a vision of science that centers human understanding.
AI is a tool. It produces data and information.
What we do with the data and information is up to us.
If mathematicians don’t want to use this tool, fine. That’s between them and their employer. (Seems pretty self-defeating to spurn a helpful tool, but whatevs. To each their own.)
But if the mathematician is being bankrolled by American taxpayers, it’s perfectly legitimate for us to insist they use the best possible tools, because we have a vested interest in maximizing our investment.
Otherwise, we’re wasting money.
If mathematicians are conducting research for their own amusement, they can do so on their own dime. But if they’re being compensated by taxpayers, then taxpayers are entitled to oversight.
Whether they “asked for this work to be done” is absolutely, positively, 100% irrelevant. The genius of the scientific method is that gatekeepers don’t matter, because a hypothesis sinks or swims on its own merits. Nobody has to ask for permission.
Either OpenAI accurately answered 90 unsolved math problems, or it didn’t. If it did, get over yourself — and learn from the results.
Imagine a taxpayer-funded scientist complaining because an AI company cured cancer while disregarding the “norms of scientific research!” (And then demanding we “return to a vision of science that centers human understanding.”)
If your child was suffering from cancer, you’d be furious. Because you don’t give a damn about the “norms of scientific research” — your goal is finding a cure ASAP.
We don’t subsidize mathematics to benefit mathematicians. We do so to benefit us.
Mathematicians declared war on AI. They’re the New Age Luddites, raging against the machine. But it’s really a war on progress.
And on the taxpayers who pay their salaries.