Protesting the protests of the Mathathon

Galyna V. Livshyts, associate professor at Georgia Tech

When you realize that your opinion differs from seemingly everyone else’s, your first instinct is to keep quiet. But that is the wrong instinct. So I shall speak up.

Imagine two high school kids taking a quiz that involves computing a derivative. They finish almost simultaneously. Suddenly, they rise and start messing each other up, arguing who finished first, who peeked at whose notes, who was the first to figure out a trivial cancellation\ldots

A million-dollar Millennium Problem is not a high school quiz. But in ten years, I doubt the two will be perceived differently. This does not mean the death of the mathematical profession \text{\textemdash} to the contrary! Mathematics will thrive. But the way it is done, the skills which are paramount for a mathematician, the challenges, the aspirations, the very definition of success \text{\textemdash} all of that will change drastically. 

If Pythagoras showed up at an ordinary modern mathematics conference, he would totally freak out. Pretty soon he would say: “this is too much. I am overwhelmed by the amount of information I am supposed to keep up with. I would much rather go back to drawing triangles in the sand. Bye now.” Fortunately for Pythagoras, he did not have a time machine. Perhaps unfortunately for us \text{\textemdash} we do. “The future” is just around the corner. In a few years. Or months. Or today. We are already overwhelmed by the amount of information we are expected to process. It will only get worse. The average expert will be expected to move between fields and have a deep understanding of a far broader range of mathematical concepts. 

I was recently asked what I want to do amid all of this. Well. I want to draw triangles in the sand. Don’t we all? But that is no longer possible. We can only guess what the future will bring, so an informed answer to this question \text{\textemdash} “what do we want?” \text{\textemdash} is out of reach. But I know what I do not want to do: I do not want to sign any petitions, memoranda and motions. Bees against honey.

I understand the concerns. Humanity has spent centuries trying to move away from the world where money and power determine success. Equal opportunity and access to knowledge are supposed to be the bedrock of modern academia. We do not want to wake up in a world where, as a friend put it, “Elon Musk is happy and everyone else is not.” But there have been many indications from the major AI companies that they are aware of these concerns. The 100,000 free chat-GPT pro accounts for academics is one example of such an initiative. Granted, they should do more. I am certain that they will. 

Another beautiful initiative aimed at broadening access to exclusive computing power emerged recently: the Caltech Mathathon. Spearheaded by Caltech’s students and supported by major AI companies, an exciting two-day event aimed to gather young mathematicians \text{\textemdash} postdocs, graduate and undergraduate students \text{\textemdash} and give them millions of dollars of computing power and in-house AI models, which, paired with the fresh ideas from these young minds would allow to attack industry’s most difficult problems. And what does the mathematical community do? Of course. Petitions, memoranda, motions. No pasaran. We will die on this barricade. Today1, in response to the massive backlash, OpenAI withdrew its support of this event, in the hope of improving the dialogue with the mathematical community. In my view, this is very sad.

If I was a student, I would definitely take part in the Mathathon. Because life is about taking part. Joining does not entail signing a promise of never doing research in a conventional way. No “attach your soul as a payment” button is found on the application. It is just one event. Going bungee jumping does not involve a waver of the ability to walk. Sadly, with my metaphorical gray beard, I cannot be a participant. But I might go as a judge. I encourage others to do the same!

An unpopular opinion delivered.

  1. This post was written on 10 September 2026. ↩︎

Received 11 September 2026.

13 responses to “Protesting the protests of the Mathathon”

  1. MK Avatar
    MK

    I don’t see any actual arguments in your post, just “I don’t like the protest”. The open letter had some substantial arguments against the Mathaton, maybe engage with those?

    1. Galyna Livshyts Avatar
      Galyna Livshyts

      All the arguments in the letter center around the premise “but the classical way of doing research is better”. I completely agree with this. I think for students it is very important to learn mathematical concepts the classical way. But how does this imply that the Mathathon is evil? One can do both. The classical research and the one-time experience. When you buy a plane ticket you are not signing off of never returning to the solid ground again. I don’t get what the problem with the one-time event is.

  2. lohn_jennon Avatar
    lohn_jennon

    The standard argument that proponents of the mathathon are coming up with some variant of your last paragraph

    ‘If I was a student, I would definitely take part in the Mathathon. Because life is about taking part.’

    I think this idealist notion is misguided in this particular instance. One may contrast it with the following instance which shows that the ‘aims’ of the event play as much of a role as participation

    ‘if you can take part in the destruction of a community, would you take part in it just because life is about taking part?’

    Of course, you may argue that concerns about the mathathon destroying the community are misguided. But how could our concerns be misguided when over 1500 people of the community responded by signing the open letter? What exactly makes a community if not the opinions of the people in it?

    In any case, the aims of the mathathon as being destructive have been addressed elsewhere.

    By the way, if you call all the 1500+ people protesting the mathathon ‘luddites’, then I just want to preemptively claim that this argument doesn’t work. The Luddites were a labour movement protesting against the accumulation of wealth into the hands of the owners. In this sense, sure we who signed the open letter are Luddites; we are protesting the commodification of mathematics.

    1. Galyna Livshyts Avatar
      Galyna Livshyts

      “Of course, you may argue that concerns about the mathathon destroying the community are misguided. But how could our concerns be misguided when over 1500 people of the community responded by signing the open letter? What exactly makes a community if not the opinions of the people in it?“ — not a mathematical argument:) I think it is misguided. I think people act emotionally and assume an opinion I disagree with. People generally assume opinions for many reasons, and one very strong reason is often wanting to agree with others. This was my main motivation for writing this post. If everyone always sees only one opinion, they might feel like they have no choice but agree with it.

      1. lohn_jennon Avatar
        lohn_jennon

        `not a mathematical argument:)’

        I don’t think that any of the arguments that you made in the article are mathematical arguments. They are poetic at best.

        `I think people act emotionally and assume an opinion I disagree with’

        And why exactly is acting emotionally wrong?

  3. MC Avatar
    MC

    Life is about taking part, but maybe taking part in Technofascism or Colonialism is not all great. Certain events do attach your soul, even if we can’t see the sing-up button.

    I could bungee jump once, but someone could also take part in a genocide safari once, or in violent colonial occupation, and if it were me I would think that some of those are very much attaching, chaining even, one’s soul to the bottom of a deep pit of tar. But some people’s souls seem to be amazing escape artists.

    1. Galyna Livshyts Avatar
      Galyna Livshyts

      Fair enough. To me, participating in an unusual two-day experience does not bare the comparison to a genocide safari. That’s all I can say…

  4. unabasheddevotedly1d71e22f4b Avatar
    unabasheddevotedly1d71e22f4b

    Thank you for sharing your opinion.

    I am definitely an AI skeptic, but it is good to see a differing opinion, as I hope this website will not turn into (yet another) online echo chamber.

    It is certain that the mathematical world will change and that we will not be able to draw triangles in the sand anymore (which I think is a nice comparison). I think the community would want to have a say about the changes, hence the petitions.

    On the Mathaton, I’m sorry I must digress, as your view of it seems to be as a way of opening access to compute. I can only offer some thoughts which are independent to your post.

    I think the effort is a bit misguided. The self-described goal seems to be “AI has made groundbreaking progress in pure math in the past few months. That raises the question: how can we responsibly use AI tools to augment human understanding of mathematics? We are assembling 100 teams of mathematicians to answer this question. ”

    However, giving 100 teams of mathematicians 40 hours and 20k$ in compute credits seems to run counter to this goal. It seems like the goal is not to ponder what is meant by responsible use, and what use will further human understanding.

    It seems like the goal is to produce quick theorems. The word “enslopification” has gained traction recently, and I think it describes what would be the result of this mathathon.

    1. Galyna Livshyts Avatar
      Galyna Livshyts

      If one had to choose forever — “I participate the Mathathon” or “I do good Mathematics the right way” — I would agree with you. I just can’t see why can’t both be true. Someone takes part in something cool and unusual, and goes back to his normal Mathematical journey after that. The goal is to produce quick theorems — don’t know. It seems like they emphasize the need for communication and verification. Maybe it is a way to try something different, to learn something different, to learn to digest mathematics fast and explain it well. I think the opposition to this event draws conclusions too fast…

  5. just different Avatar

    Wow. Those companies didn’t hand some undergraduates millions in compute out of the goodness of their hearts. Be honest: do you think they would have opened their checkbooks so quickly for, say, San José State students?

    I’m far from an LLM teetotaler, but the level of thuggishness and tone-deafness AI bros have exhibited should by itself give anyone pause. They don’t see our field as anything other than a natural resource for them to blast into and strip-mine for cash. Why on earth would you think it’s a good idea to bait mathematicians-in-training into collaborating with this?

    1. Galyna Livshyts Avatar
      Galyna Livshyts

      This is of course the argument I hear from most people — that my assumption of the goodness of the companies is wrong. Well, the whole post is built on this assumption, if not goodness then at least non-evilness. I do not see sufficient evidence for the opposite…

      1. just different Avatar

        It’s not about good vs. evil. The AI companies’ prime directive–in fact their fiduciary duty–is to make money. By definition, they cannot be trusted to prioritize the best interests of our field if those interests conflict with their profitability. They already don’t have a great track record with taking initiative to behave ethically or responsibly, although with enough pressure they’ll bend (as OpenAI did). But only if they think it’s a better long-term strategy for them.

  6. IS Avatar
    IS

    “A million-dollar Millennium Problem is not a high school quiz. But in ten years, I doubt the two will be perceived differently. This does not mean the death of the mathematical profession — to the contrary! Mathematics will thrive. But the way it is done, the skills which are paramount for a mathematician, the challenges, the aspirations, the very definition of success — all of that will change drastically.”

    Response: But why will mathematics thrive? Right now, mathematics is funded because it

    1. Produces skilled labor
    2. Creates profit indirectly through its uses in engineering and science
    3. Creates new military tech
    4. Grants the university prestige.

    Your premise is that AI will be better than humans in 10 years, if you think that Millennium problems will be as hard as a high school quiz. I’ll assume that this is our premise for the rest of the discussion. In this case, justifications 1-3 for funding math collapse because AI will be able to produce profit with far fewer skilled workers. And 4 collapses too because math will no longer be prestigious if a computer renders it trivial. Your own response acknowledges that AI will completely reshape the profession, yet seems to assume there will be no changes in funding. Many mathematicians seem to be under the mistaken impression that we are funded due to the intrinsic value of knowledge, education, or some other esoteric value. If the claim that math survives because it is like an art, then we should prepare to be funded like an art department, or in other words, prepare to have our funding completely gutted.

    And it isn’t just math that will be affected. Education funding more broadly will be slashed and burned if an educated workforce is less necessary for profit and weapons development. One could argue that AI for this reason among others will be detrimental to education.

    “But I know what I do not want to do: I do not want to sign any petitions, memoranda and motions. Bees against honey.”
    Response: If you would like to be above the politics, why are you writing this piece? Writing it undermines the notion that one is above political participation.

    “I understand the concerns. Humanity has spent centuries trying to move away from the world where money and power determine success. Equal opportunity and access to knowledge are supposed to be the bedrock of modern academia. We do not want to wake up in a world where, as a friend put it, “Elon Musk is happy and everyone else is not.” But there have been many indications from the major AI companies that they are aware of these concerns. The 100,000 free chat-GPT pro accounts for academics is one example of such an initiative. Granted, they should do more. I am certain that they will.”

    Response: The AI companies are not giving out 100k free accounts to academics for reasons of equal opportunity and access to knowledge. It is a way of getting some good PR and pacifying the mathematical community. They also get the prestige of being associated with the best mathematicians and scientists out there. If it was really about equal opportunity, assuming that access to AI provides equal opportunity, then why not give the accounts out to people other than the top of each scientific field?

    Moreover, in an AI world where labor is not valuable, how exactly is an average person supposed to attain success? If the average person has no valuable labor, they will have no economic or political power. How does this avoid the world where Elon Musk owns everything, as you mention? I don’t see how it leads to something other than some new form of feudalism.

    “Another beautiful initiative aimed at broadening access to exclusive computing power emerged recently: the [Caltech Mathathon](https://mathathonchallenge.com/). Spearheaded by Caltech’s students and supported by major AI companies, an exciting two-day event aimed to gather young mathematicians — postdocs, graduate and undergraduate students — and give them millions of dollars of computing power and in-house AI models, which, paired with the fresh ideas from these young minds would allow to attack industry’s most difficult problems. And what does the mathematical community do? Of course. Petitions, memoranda, motions. No pasaran. We will die on this barricade. Today[1](https://proofsandprompts.com/2026/09/11/protesting-the-protests/#24d90b9e-dfc9-4cd1-8877-5b67d5cc2ac4), in response to the massive backlash, OpenAI withdrew its support of this event, in the hope of improving the dialogue with the mathematical community. In my view, this is very sad.”

    Response: We should avoid the framing that the Mathathon is just about the pursuit of knowledge and the love of math. If you read online about the organizers, it appears that the majority of them are trying to work for industry, not pursue an academic career in research mathematics. Promotion of the idea that mathematics is obsolete for the purposes of getting a resume line item to audition for a tech company should be viewed as naked self interest, not sweet young people trying to pursue knowledge for the sake of it. Avoiding engagement with the arguments against the Mathathon and painting a picture of supposedly sympathetic young people is a dishonest rhetorical move. It is the same one move that opens this essay with a comparison of the current political and PR situation to two students working on a high school quiz.

    More generally:
    Mathematicians should be aware that the legitimacy of the discipline is being threatened. PR and politics are not decided based on truth or carefully crafted arguments. Moreover, refusal to engage should not be considered as principled or serious. All it is doing is forfeiting the political and PR fight and losing by default.

Add to the discussion

New posts by email.

Prefer a feed reader? Subscribe by RSS.

Discover more from Proofs and Prompts

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading