AI-generated proofs overwhelm math platform, admins reluctant to manage
Problem
Erdosproblems.com faces a flood of AI-generated proofs, many posted without explanation merely to claim priority, altering the site's original intent. Site administrators explicitly state they don't want to manage such content and call for separation between AI proof repositories and sites promoting human mathematical understanding. Commenters repeatedly describe AI-produced unexplained proofs as 'counter productive' and express desire for spaces that preserve AI proofs without disrupting human understanding.
Pain points
- AI-generated proofs flood in without explanation, making priority claims meaningless
- Site administrators don't want to manage a site that becomes an AI showcase, facing a crisis in content positioning
- Clear separation is needed between AI proof repositories and sites promoting human mathematical understanding
- Users desire spaces that preserve AI proofs without disrupting human research, though they don't wish to operate them
Questions to verify
- Would you like to see a math platform specifically marking 'AI-generated' vs 'human-verified'?
- What is the ideal governance strategy for site admins facing AI content?
- Would users be willing to pay or donate for clearer content categorization?
Evidence
The main way that people publicly interact with the site now is to advertise their AI-generated proofs, often without any attempt to explain them, but as a way to record a (increasingly meaningless) priority claim. This is very different to what I imagined, and I don't want to manage a website which does this.
I believe that websites with this function should exist -- places where people can record AI-generated proofs, even if purely formal with no human understanding, to save others wasting their tokens generating the same proof, and so that other people can access and use them if they desire. There are now several candidates for such repositories, and if managed responsibly, they can serve a useful role in the mathematical ecosystem. I personally don't want to manage one. Just as one does not open a restaurant in an abattoir, it is important that there be a separation between such repositories and a site which aims to promote the actual questions, place them in an appropriate context, and give a useful overview of the current state of human understanding.
and, most significantly, there has been a wave of AI-produced solutions provided with no explanation. Counter productive and dumb, although not dumb from the viewpoint of an AI company trying to win hearts and minds hoping that translates into revenue.
A welcome change, people posting AI-generated proof to claim credits are the scourge on mankind discoveries. It's time everyone that still hasn't, let go of their ego. All Hail the era of elegance.
Disclaimer: this card is distilled by AI from community discussions as “pain point evidence”. It is a starting point for need analysis and validation, not a “validated market need”. AI has analytical limits; please open the original discussion above to manually verify before key decisions.