logo
Can AI quicken the pace of math discovery?

Can AI quicken the pace of math discovery?

The Star24-06-2025
Artificial intelligence can write a poem in the style of Walt Whitman, provide dating advice and suggest the best way to cook an artichoke. But when it comes to mathematics, large language models like OpenAI's immensely popular ChatGPT have sometimes stumbled over basic problems. Some see this as an inherent limitation of the technology, especially when it comes to complex reasoning.
A new initiative from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency seeks to account for that shortfall by enlisting researchers in finding ways to conduct high-level mathematics research with an AI 'co-author.' The goal of the new grant-making program, Exponentiating Mathematics, is to speed up the pace of progress in pure (as opposed to applied) math – and, in doing so, to turn AI into a superlative mathematician.
'Mathematics is this great test bed for what is right now the key pain point for AI systems,' said Patrick Shafto, a Rutgers University mathematician and computer scientist who now serves as a program manager in DARPA's information innovation office, known as I20. 'So if we overcome that, potentially, it would unleash much more powerful AI.' He added, 'There's huge potential benefit to the community of mathematicians and to society at large.'
Shafto spoke from his office at DARPA's headquarters, an anonymous building in northern Virginia whose facade of bluish glass gives little indication that it houses one of the most unusual agencies in the federal government. Inside the building's airy lobby, visitors surrender their cellphones. Near a bank of chairs, a glass display shows a prosthetic arm that can be controlled by the wearer's brain signals.
'By improving mathematics, we're also understanding how AI works better,' said Alondra Nelson, who served as a top science adviser in President Joe Biden's administration and is a faculty member at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. 'So I think it's kind of a virtuous cycle of understanding.' She suggested that, down the road, math-adept AI could enhance cryptography and aid in space exploration.
Started after World War II to compete with the Soviet Union in the space race, DARPA is most famous for fostering the research that led to the creation of ARPANET, the precursor to the internet we use today. At the agency's small gift store, which is not accessible to the public, one can buy replicas of a cocktail napkin on which someone sketched out the rudimentary state of computer networks in 1969. DARPA later funded the research that gave rise to drones and Apple's digital assistant, Siri. But it is also responsible for the development of Agent Orange, the potent defoliant used to devastating effect during the Vietnam War.
'I'm sure this isn't 100% innocent,' Andrew Granville, a mathematician at the University of Montreal, said of DARPA's math initiative, although he emphasised that he was only speculating about eventual outcomes. DARPA is, after all, part of the Pentagon, even if it has traditionally operated with enviable independence. The US military is rapidly incorporating AI into its operations, with the aim of not losing out to China and its People's Liberation Army or to Russia, which has been testing out new technologies on the battlefield in Ukraine.
At the same time, Granville praised the endeavour, which comes as the Trump administration is cutting funding for scientific research. 'We are in disastrous times for US science,' Granville said. 'I'm very pleased that DARPA is able to funnel money to academia.'
A surfer and skateboarder in his free time, Shafto, 49, sat in a sparse conference room one recent afternoon, imagining a future when AI would be as good at solving multistep problems as it is at trying to glean meaning from huge troves of texts, which it does through the use of probability theory.
Despite the unseasonably raw weather, Shafto seemed dressed for the beach in a blue-and-white Hawaiian-style shirt, white flannel trousers and sandals, with a trilby hat on the table before him. His vibe was, on the whole, decidedly closer to that of Santa Cruz than of Capitol Hill, largely in keeping with DARPA's traditional disregard for the capital's slow, bureaucratic pace. (The agency sets priorities and funds outside scientists but does not do research on its own; academics like Shafto spend an average of four years as program managers.)
'There are great mathematicians who work on age-old problems,' Shafto said. 'That's not the kind of thing that I'm particularly interested in.' Instead, he wanted the discipline to move more quickly by using AI to save time.
'Problems in mathematics take decades or centuries, sometimes, to solve,' he said in a recent presentation at DARPA's headquarters on the Exponentiating Mathematics project, which is accepting applications through mid-July. He then shared a slide showing that, in terms of the number of papers published, math had stagnated during the last century while life and technical sciences had exploded. In case the point wasn't clear, the slide's heading drove it home: 'Math is sloooowwww. …'
The kind of pure math Shafto wants to accelerate tends to be 'sloooowwww' because it is not seeking numerical solutions to concrete problems, the way applied mathematics does. Instead, pure math is the heady domain of visionary theoreticians who make audacious observations about how the world works, which are promptly scrutinised (and sometimes torn apart) by their peers.
'Proof is king,' Granville said.
Math proofs consist of multiple building blocks called lemmas, minor theorems employed to prove bigger ones. Whether each Jenga tower of lemmas can maintain integrity in the face of intense scrutiny is precisely what makes pure math such a 'long and laborious process,' acknowledged Bryna R. Kra, a mathematician at Northwestern University. 'All of math builds on previous math, so you can't really prove new things if you don't understand how to prove the old things,' she said. 'To be a research mathematician, the current practice is that you go through every step, you prove every single detail.'
Lean, a software-based proof assistant, can speed up the process, but Granville said it was 'annoying, because it has its own protocols and language,' requiring programming expertise. 'We need to have a much better way of communication,' he added.
Could artificial intelligence save the day? That's the hope, according to Shafto. An AI model that could reliably check proofs would save enormous amounts of time, freeing mathematicians to be more creative. 'The constancy of math coincides with the fact that we practice math more or less the same: still people standing at a chalkboard,' Shafto said. 'It's hard not to draw the correlation and say, 'Well, you know, maybe if we had better tools, that would change progress.''
AI would benefit, too, Shafto and others believe. Large language models like ChatGPT can scour the digitised storehouses of human knowledge to produce a half-convincing college essay on the Russian Revolution. But thinking through the many intricate steps of a mathematical problem remains elusive.
'I think we'll learn a lot about what the capabilities of various AI protocols are from how well we can get them to generate material that's of interest,' said Jordan S. Ellenberg, a mathematician at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who is part of a team applying for an Exponentiating Mathematics grant. 'We have no intuition yet about which problems are going to be hard and which problems are easy. We need to learn that.'
One of the more disconcerting truths about artificial intelligence is that we do not entirely understand how it works. 'This lack of understanding is essentially unprecedented in the history of technology,' Dario Amodei, CEO of the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, wrote in a recent essay. Ellenberg somewhat downplayed that assertion, pointing out that electricity was widely used before its properties were fully understood. Then again, with some AI experts worrying that artificial intelligence could destroy the world, any clarity into its operations tends to be welcome.
Nelson, the former White House adviser, acknowledged 'legitimate' concerns about the rapid pace at which artificial intelligence is being integrated into seemingly every sector of society. All the more reason, she argued, to have DARPA on the case. 'There's a much higher benchmark that needs to be reached than whether or not your chatbot is hallucinating if you ask it a question about Shakespeare,' she said.
'The stakes are much higher.' – ©2025 The New York Times Company
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

AI must remain assistive tool not decision maker says former judge
AI must remain assistive tool not decision maker says former judge

The Sun

time3 hours ago

  • The Sun

AI must remain assistive tool not decision maker says former judge

KUALA LUMPUR: Artificial intelligence must remain an assistive tool rather than a decision-maker according to former Federal Court judge Tan Sri Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal. He emphasized that any AI impacting individual rights requires rigorous testing and clear oversight before deployment. Harmindar stated AI possesses transformative potential for human endeavor but must not replace human judgment particularly within criminal justice systems. AI should be an assistant, not a decision maker he declared during his plenary session at the ASEAN Law Forum 2025. He cited a Sabah case where an AI sentencing tool recommended ten months imprisonment with fifty-four percent probability for a drug offence. The magistrate instead imposed twelve months imprisonment demonstrating human judgment must prevail. Harmindar chairs the Criminal Law Review Committee and stressed the necessity for proper rules and safeguards. A clear risk-based approach is essential before adopting AI in judicial processes he emphasized. Singapore has already issued guidelines for AI use in courts he noted while the Philippines drafts its judiciary AI governance framework. Malaysia and other ASEAN members must follow suit with their own frameworks he urged. A framework ensuring responsible AI use requires risk assessments and mitigation measures he explained. AI use cases must undergo testing for bias, reliability and transparency before adoption he added. He cautioned that AI's criminal justice application demands vigilance despite being powerful technology. We must always remain accountable he asserted regarding AI integration into justice systems. Approaching AI with eyes wide open prepares us to address risks and reap benefits he concluded. Colin Seow of Colin Seow Chambers provided Singapore's perspective on AI implementation. The Singapore Police Force uses AI in digital forensics to automatically sift seized devices for abuse material. This integration significantly improves investigation speed and accuracy he confirmed. AI deployment extends to Singapore's financial sector through the COSMIC platform he added. The Monetary Authority of Singapore launched COSMIC last year as a public-private data-sharing initiative. Major banks and financial institutions participate in this collaborative information sharing platform. AI analyses transaction patterns within COSMIC enabling proactive suspicious activity detection. Banks can flag concerning activities across institutions while safeguarding customer confidentiality he explained. Legislative changes support this initiative allowing information sharing strictly for crime prevention. The three-day ASEAN Law Forum featured fifty-eight speakers and moderators across fifteen sessions. Over three hundred participants from ASEAN and beyond attended the expert-led discussions. Topics covered alternative dispute resolution and commercial law reforms alongside human rights. - Bernama

Baidu posts quarterly revenue drop as consumption flags
Baidu posts quarterly revenue drop as consumption flags

Free Malaysia Today

time5 hours ago

  • Free Malaysia Today

Baidu posts quarterly revenue drop as consumption flags

Baidu achieved revenue of US$4.56 billion in Q2 2025. (EPA Images pic) BEIJING : Chinese internet giant Baidu recorded a slight drop in quarterly revenue today, dragged down by a persistent slump in domestic spending as its push into artificial intelligence (AI) accelerates. Beijing-based Baidu, the operator of China's top search engine, generates a significant proportion of its revenue from online ads, making its performance highly susceptible to fluctuations in the country's spending patterns. The firm achieved revenue of ¥32.7 billion (US$4.56 billion) during the second quarter (Q2) of 2025, down 4% year-on-year, according to a statement to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Revenue from online marketing during the period was down 15% year-on-year to ¥16.2 billion, the statement showed. China is facing an uncertain economic outlook as cautious consumers navigate a years-long downturn in the property market, high unemployment and trade tensions with Washington. Retail sales – a key gauge of consumer demand in China – grew at a slower rate in July than expected, official data showed on Friday. Following years of tight regulation of the vast Chinese tech sector, Beijing is hoping that recent advancements in AI will provide the spark needed to jumpstart the domestic economy. Baidu also said today that its net profit during Q2 was ¥7.3 billion – a 33% jump year-on-year but down 5% from the previous quarter. The company has invested heavily in AI, placing it in an increasingly competitive race alongside China's other tech giants Tencent, Alibaba and ByteDance. It has also sought to advance its autonomous 'robotaxi' services abroad. Baidu and Lyft announced plans this month to launch robotaxis on the rideshare app in Germany and Britain in 2026, pending regulatory approval. The firm said in a joint statement with Uber in July that it plans to offer driverless cars on the Lyft competitor's app in Asia and the Middle East this year.

Ethical fault line: Integrity in the age of AI
Ethical fault line: Integrity in the age of AI

New Straits Times

time8 hours ago

  • New Straits Times

Ethical fault line: Integrity in the age of AI

WHEN many affirmed it as the next great leap in human innovation, on par with the internet's emergence in the 1990s or television debut in the 1950s. Yet, as emphasised in the recent Awani AI Roundtable, the question is no longer whether AI will transform the media and journalism landscape. The real issue is whether we can control its power without eroding the skills and values that keep society's heartbeat steady. This question arises because AI has already begun reshaping journalism's possibilities. From producing multi-platform content to streamlining newsroom operations, it offers near-limitless capacity to strengthen the profession. The sky's the limit sentiment resonates globally as AI can analyse trends, translate languages in seconds, edit videos and draft articles in moments. Used wisely, it can elevate journalistic thinking, freeing reporters to focus on deep investigations, data analysis and creative storytelling. Yet, this potential comes with a cautionary note: technology is never a neutral force, for it carries the biases, values and blind spots of its creators and controllers. That is why we must be careful. Technology has long been cast as society's saviour, particularly for communities marginalised by geography, economics or politics. AI must remain a tool, not a belief system. Like any tool, AI can be used for either ethical or harmful purposes. In the wrong hands, it risks reinforcing power imbalances, spreading disinformation and establishing media monopolies which are the challenges that require critical human oversight. Oversight matters because the greatest threat may not be spectacular scandals like fake news or deepfakes, but the quiet surrender of our ability to think critically. When AI delivers answers faster than human reasoning, it tempts us to bypass questioning, doubting and innovating. This vulnerability is amplified in education systems that lead compliance over curiosity. Without reform, AI could fill this intellectual space and produce a generation proficient at writing prompts but unable to thoroughly evaluate information. Such risks deepen when AIs development and control rest in the hands of a few global tech giants. This concentration of power risks creating a new form of media colonialism where algorithms shaping our news flows are designed to serve commercial or political interests far beyond our borders. For Malaysia, this is more than an abstract concern. Over-reliance on foreign AI tools, without building local Large Language Models (LLMs), could erode our narrative sovereignty. Journalism must not remain a passive consumer of imported technology; it must become a co-creator, ensuring AI reflects local contexts, languages and values. Without this, our stories risk being reframed to suit someone else's agenda. This concentration of technological power also reshapes the information supply chain, from data collection to content distribution, in ways that are increasingly automated and centralised. Smaller players are pushed aside, while the speed of AI-generated disinformation outpaces human fact-checking. If convincing fake videos can be produced in minutes, we will need verification systems of equal sophistication and transparency so that truth does not perpetually trail behind lies. These risks intersect with another shift: the changing relationship between younger audiences and news. One of the most striking points from the Awani AI Roundtable was that many in Generation Z, despite being digitally savvy, actively practise news avoidance, turning away from traditional reporting altogether. This detachment leaves them more vulnerable to the echo chambers of unimportant content and viral falsehoods. Yet, their deep familiarity with digital tools also positions them to reinvent journalism for the platforms they inhabit. To tap into this potential, we must draw young people into journalism not as content creators chasing virality, but as storytellers serving the public interest. This requires education reforms that integrate AI literacy, ethical reasoning and investigative skills into journalism curricula. AI can accelerate their work, but it cannot replace the human labour of uncovering truths and connecting them to communities. Such preparation is important because the ethical fault line in journalism has never been about speed or efficiency; it is about integrity. Without firm ethical guidelines, AI could normalise corrupt, irrelevant or dangerous practices. The risk of ethical outsourcing emerges when we assume tech companies have embedded fairness and accountability into their systems. They have not. AI mirrors human prejudices and at times, amplifies them. Only attentive human oversight can close these gaps. This raises an urgent question: how should AI be regulated? Should the rules be set globally, nationally or through a blend of both? Global frameworks offer consistency but often fail to account for local realities. National regulations can be more responsive but are vulnerable to political manipulation. A hybrid model, blending international norms with local enforcement and shared accountability between public and private sectors, may be the most practical path. For journalism, regulation must go beyond technical standards. It requires clear rules on transparency, such as labelling AI-generated content; consent, including whose data is used to train AI and correction ensuring harmful outputs can be swiftly removed. This leads to a central principle that AI should not replace journalists but work alongside them. Imagine AI-driven fact-checking tools flagging inaccuracies in real time or algorithms suggesting diverse sources to prevent one-dimensional reporting. These tools can strengthen journalism but only when paired with cultural practices that prioritize human empathy, curiosity and trust; in this way, AI complements rather than replaces journalism. The most effective partnerships occur when AI supports, rather than seizes, the creative process. Newsrooms must be proactive, with clear guidelines covering transparency, accountability and regular bias audits. Journalists should be trained not only in AIs technical uses but also in its ethical and social implications. Crucially, AI can be used to better serve marginalised audiences, delivering tailored content without sacrificing integrity or succumbing to sensationalism. Ultimately, AI will reshape the media industry but the deeper question is whether it will reshape us. Generation Z will inherit leadership roles and their approach to AI will determine journalisms trajectory for decades. They must be equipped to see the forest of social consequences, not just the trees of technological proficiency. In our rush to embrace AI, we must remember what makes journalism irreplaceable: the human ability to ask hard questions, challenge power and connect personal stories to the public good. AI can enhance this mission, but it cannot lead it. As the Awani AI Roundtable concluded, the future of journalism is not an AI-versus-human contest, but a fusion of humans using AI wisely. The sky may indeed be the limit, but our anchor must remain grounded in ethics, community and reality.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store