On: How to prevent AI from harming mathematics

The question of AI’s impact on mathematics is framed backward. The danger is not that machines will harm mathematics - mathematics is proof, not opinion, and no tool can corrupt a valid demonstration. The danger is that mathematicians will harm themselves by outsourcing rigor to systems they do not fully interrogate.

First, define “harm.” Does it mean generating false proofs? Flooding journals with plausible but unverified results? Eroding the discipline’s standards because machines produce faster than humans can verify? Each requires a different remedy. The article assumes the threat is external - as if mathematics were a temple to be defended from barbarians. But the real threat is internal: the temptation to treat AI as an oracle rather than a tool.

Audit the assumptions:

1. That AI-generated mathematics is inherently untrustworthy (false - a proof is valid or invalid regardless of its origin).
2. That human mathematicians are infallible verifiers (false - history is littered with human error).
3. That speed of production matters more than clarity of reasoning (catastrophically false).

The solution is not to ban AI from mathematics but to enforce stricter verification. Every AI-assisted proof must be accompanied by a human-readable derivation, step by step, axiom by axiom. If the machine cannot render its reasoning in a form a human can follow, discard its output. The method survives when we demand transparency, not when we reject tools.

The library burned. The proofs survived because they were copied by hand, examined, and preserved. If we treat AI as a scribe rather than an authority, mathematics will endure. If we treat it as a shortcut, we will drown in elegant, unverified nonsense. The choice is ours.