<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Shaping the Future of Mathematics in the Age of AI · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2603.24914/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2603.24914/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Shaping the Future of Mathematics in the Age of AI — mentioned by dvt</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48500200</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2603.24914:48500200</guid><pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 05:16:43 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Both the Leiden Declaration[1] as well as Commelin et al.&amp;#x27;s announcement (Shaping the Future of Mathematics in the Age of AI)[2] are completely common-sense pieces, neither overstating the power of AI nor understating the capability of these tools to be misused (most acutely when it comes to attribution). I do think that ethically, OpenAI and Anthropic, by training their models on the entire corpus of human knowledge, have certainly broken some rules, but these rules were already broken decades ago by Google—unless we really want to start splitting hairs about if indexing + processing is…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2603.24914/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.HO</category></item></channel></rss>
