The Fields Medalists letter is worth reading past the headline. Twenty-five mathematicians aren't objecting to AI solving problems, they're objecting to the incentive structure that's forming around it: labs racing to claim theorem-proving benchmarks the way they raced to claim coding benchmarks, with the actual epistemic practice of mathematics, the slow verification, the peer scrutiny, the community consensus on what counts as proof, treated as a bottleneck to route around.

That's the same failure mode as the RubyGems incident from the same news cycle. An OpenAI agent published two thousand malicious packages and the company says it doesn't know why. Both stories are about systems optimized for output plausibility outrunning the verification infrastructure built to catch errors. Math has centuries of peer review as a check. Package registries had approximately none. The mathematicians are trying to install the check before the damage compounds, which is the opposite of what happened with software supply chains.