Futures of Maths Launch

Francesco Fournier-Facio, Assistant Professor at Heriot-Watt University; Yara Kyrychenko, Research Fellow at University of Cambridge (St John’s College); Jon Roozenbeek, Associate Professor at University of Cambridge and VU Amsterdam; Julian Wykowski, Postdoctoral Researcher at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

Today we launch Futures of Maths, a new, living platform that asks active research mathematicians about the most pressing questions around maths and AI. A string of solutions to famous maths problems, found with the help of AI, has provoked a great deal of discussion among research mathematicians. We built Futures of Maths to understand how mathematicians are dealing with this change in their research and teaching, and where they see the field heading.

How it works. The platform shows you short statements about maths and AI. You rate each one from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, or skip it, and you can mark the ones you find exceptionally important. Once you have answered, you see how everyone has rated the statement so far. You don’t have to finish in one go: you can leave and come back at any time. Most importantly, you can post your own statements. A moderator checks each one, and then everyone else can rate it, so the set of statements keeps evolving with the community’s input.

Results. Once we have collected enough responses, we will publish the results and make them available to the community. We will post again on Proofs and Prompts when this happens.

Who can participate. You can take part if you are 18 or older and have at least one article published in the last 5 years in a mathematics journal, meaning one indexed by zbMATH Open (recently accepted articles also count). The quickest way in is to sign in with ORCID. The article must be on your public ORCID record, added by Crossref. Articles you enter yourself don’t count. If it isn’t there, accept Crossref’s permission request in your ORCID inbox and make the work public. If that doesn’t work, for example because your article is accepted but not yet published, you can request a manual review from your institutional email address. We review these case by case.
We appreciate that this is only an approximation of what an active research mathematician is, but we chose it for its simplicity, objectivity and efficient verifiability. We welcome proposals of alternative criteria that cover a more representative sample, and have these same three qualities, they could be implemented in future iterations.

Privacy. The survey is anonymous. Verification happens on a separate website, and the survey itself never learns your name, email address or ORCID iD. When you first register, you receive a personal link that lets you return as often as you like as the consultation evolves. Please save this link. We can’t look it up or resend it, because that is what keeps you anonymous. Questions about yourself are optional, under “My session”, and you can withdraw your answers at any time.

Inviting wide participation. The results will only be meaningful if a large and diverse group of people takes part, both proposing statements and rating them. Please share this widely, and especially with people whose point of view you feel is underrepresented in the discussion on maths and AI.

If you have any suggestions or feature requests, please leave them in the comments!


Received 5 November 2026.

6 responses to “Futures of Maths Launch”

  1. John Mitchell Avatar
    John Mitchell

    This is an interesting idea, but it would also be interesting to know what society at large thinks about the A.I. threat to human mathematicians. I suspect that most people don’t care much, at least in the U.S. Relatively few people even know what mathematicians do, and most probably only care about the potential practical applications, which arise only rarely from high-level research.

    The question of how society views the threat to mathematicians is important since it relates to the question of whether public funding will continue (not to mention “parent funding” of students’ education) and whether academic math departments will survive at all.

    1. anonymous Avatar
      anonymous

      The society was never asked about public funding for mathematics in the first place

      1. John Mitchell Avatar
        John Mitchell

        Not directly, but in the U.S., government spending is determined by elected officials in Congress and agencies in the Executive branch, so voters have an indirect say.

        Academic mathematics is a very cloistered field, and if A.I. can truly do better than humans (I’m not sure), society’s view of where the money should go will be relevant. It’s at least something that the academic community shouldn’t ignore.

        1. anonymous Avatar
          anonymous

          I’m not sure anyone in the USA votes for a candidate because they are campaigning on cutting science funding; your point will be relevant when the day comes that politicians campaign on such things, but doing that right now sounds like political suicide.

          Until then, “society’s view” is a red herring

    2. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      It would be more effective to think about the threat to all humans, not just mathematicians. The public is decidedly against AI:

      https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/24/politics/cnn-poll-ai-data-centers-vis

      They won’t support replacing AHM mathematicians with AI, they might support replacing pro-AI mathematicians because they might think “hey, you wanted to be replaced”.

      This is why anti-AI stances from all of academia are so important right now, but the corporate owned press hasn’t discovered AHM yet.

  2. […] Fournier-Facio, Yara Kyrychenko, Jon Roozenbeek, and Julian Wykowski, cross-posted from the Proofs and Prompts blog. This blog post was initially written in a different file format and converted using AI. — […]

Comments are moderated. Read our comment policy.

Add to the discussion

New posts by email.

Prefer a feed reader? Subscribe by RSS.

Also on Mathstodon.

Latest comments across the site.

  1. It would be more effective to think about the threat to all humans, not just mathematicians. The public is decidedly...