Proofs, Prompts and Posts: A Community Blog on AI in Mathematics
Synopsis
This guest post by the editors of the communal blog Proofs and Prompts describes why the blog was started and what it aims to do: as AI became a central topic of conversation in the mathematical community, the editors created a collective space for mathematicians who lack a natural platform, especially PhD students, and reports that about a month after launch contributors ranged from PhD students and undergrads to Fields medallists and hobbyists, with posts ranging from a call for a general moratorium on AI to the view that AI plays too small a role in mathematics, while noting that contributors remain concentrated in Western Europe and North America, few have experience developing or evaluating LLMs, and only a handful of the forty-or-so published posts were written by women, and inviting
Interpretation
The post explains that the blog was founded so that conversations about AI in mathematics reach a wider audience, since "most mathematicians do not have a natural platform", citing the example that in early August the editors read established mathematicians lamenting the fate of PhD students but could barely find a PhD student speaking out anywhere. Relative to public discussion then dominated by established mathematicians, the blog opens the platform to a broader range of mathematical practitioners. A self-account by the editorial team based on their own observations and experience launching the blog, without quantitative survey data.
The post reports engagement about a month after launch: community engagement on the site is still growing, the inbox is full of contributions, authors include "PhD students, undergrads, Fields medallists, and hobbyists", and opposing positions are published side by side, such as a post proposing a general moratorium on AI alongside one suggesting AI is not playing enough of a role in mathematics, and a critical open letter about the Caltech Mathathon alongside a response from the organisers. It demonstrates an editorial practice of placing opposing views on the same issue side by side. Based on the editors' description of the roughly forty posts already published, an observation at the level of platform operation.
The post states plainly that author diversity still has room to improve: few posts were written by people with experience developing or evaluating LLMs, contributors have been "overwhelmingly from Western Europe and North America", and only a handful of the forty-or-so published posts were written by women. It raises the representativeness gap as a public self-assessment rather than leaving it as a general appeal. A descriptive account by the editors of published content, without a precise counting method.
The post lists specific topics on which it wants more first-hand experience, including "inequalities of access", practical aspects and limitations of LLMs, open-source models, the response of journal editors, and new initiatives, and invites readers to send contributions and suggestions. It moves the agenda from a general debate about AI and mathematics toward a concrete list of actionable questions. A call-for-contributions direction set by the editors, reflecting their priorities rather than research findings.
Perspective
This post is aimed at mathematical practitioners and enthusiasts interested in the relationship between mathematics and AI; it describes the blog's ambition to be a place where people "find one another and organise around shared concerns and visions", and explicitly invites contributions from people with first-hand knowledge of LLM development and evaluation, inequalities of access, open-source models, and journal editors' responses. Its conclusions apply to community discussion and exchange of views, not to empirical claims about AI's role in mathematics.
The loaded text is a blog page containing many navigation, archive, and category elements, and figures or statistical details beyond the body are not presented; descriptions such as the number of submissions and the composition of authors can therefore only be understood through phrases like "forty-or-so already published", leaving the exact counting method and time frame open. In addition, the specific posts and discussions mentioned, such as the open letter and response about the Caltech Mathathon, are only summarised here, and their details require consulting the original posts.