Snorre H. Christiansen, Professor at the University of Oslo
The EMS should establish a structure to shepherd the use of artificial intelligence in mathematics research. First version sent to the EMS on 20 September 2026.
A European institute for AI enhanced research in mathematics
This open letter is a response to the latest developments in AI (including contributions to the Millennium problem on Navier-Stokes) as they impact the mathematical community.
My impression is that many research mathematicians would feel a loss of meaning if the most advanced research were to consist mainly in efficient prompting and agent management, especially if these tools are outside of our control. This sense of loss compounds with scepticism about where the broader society is driven, by the interests of a handful privately owned outsized AI companies. What’s more, in most cases these companies are subject to politics and jurisdictions that we can hardly count on swaying.
I believe that the mathematical community is well placed to develop its own AI models, to regain control over its destiny. The community has competent and motivated manpower, especially if research as we knew it is upended, as seems to be already the case. I am sure that mathematicians can develop the AIs that are best at doing maths and that they are best placed to help regulate the use of this tool, notably in regards to the education and recruitment of future generations of mathematicians. Mathematical thinking is as needed now as it has ever been.
This communal AI could take the form of an institute owned by EU/EEA through the European Research Council (ERC), governed by the EMS and partnered with promising European AI companies for mutual benefit (I have noted that Mistral has developed Leanstral).
It would be subject to European law, contribute to European sovereignty and would give European mathematicians a hand on the steering wheel in matters that are important to them. Communal values have been expressed in particular in the Leiden declaration. The declaration by Fields medalists relates our concerns to the ones expressed in other arts and sciences. The initiative should be mindful of the solidarities felt by mathematicians across continents.
Mathematicians have always had a broad spectrum of views on matters of ethics, especially regarding military technology. I suppose this will also be the case regarding AI. I understand that some will prefer to stay away from AI all together, and that’s fine. Protecting human agency in mathematics can take many forms.
This initiative would provide a structure that gives willing mathematicians a possibility to defend their values and regain a sense of control over their destiny. If prompting is the future, I for one would like to prompt inside a structure I can support. This way we can at least try to align future AIs with the interests and sense of dignity we defend as mathematicians and as human beings united by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Traditional ways of doing maths would coexist with AI enhanced mathematical research developed in house and whose findings are shared on a need to know basis and published according to consensual protocols as collective endeavors (high energy physicists working at CERN have more experience with this).
I would also suggest that the EMS establish a Millennium type prize related to AI. It could be for instance to explain mathematically why deep neural networks work so well on some problems otherwise considered intractable (due for instance to the curse of dimensionality). This would give the EMS an occasion to communicate to the greater public about the role of mathematics in modern technologies.
Yours sincerely,
Snorre H. Christiansen
Received on 22 September 2026.
Add to the discussion