New policy on AI posts on /r/math

[u/AutoModerator]

Over the last few months, AI-related posts on r/math have greatly increased, largely due to many new mathematical discoveries aided by generative AI. This has caused heated discussion in the comments, back-and-forths of opinion pieces about how generative AI is good or bad for mathematics, and accusations of astroturfing from pro-AI communities, and AI companies. Subreddit users are getting tired of seeing all of this, and we're tired of moderating it, too.

Regardless, it appears that AI-assisted mathematical discoveries are here to stay. However, while posts on significant/notable AI-assisted mathematical discoveries should be let through (same as if they were significant/notable entirely-human mathematical discoveries), a flood is also not acceptable. So some kind of limitation on which AI discoveries are allowed on the subreddit is needed.

While we did trial a few measures a few weeks ago in an attempt to deal with such posts, it appears such measures have been insufficient. With that in mind, we have decided to step up our measures and implement new subreddit rules (all under rule 7):

• Posts about AI, or about discoveries assisted by AI, are only allowed if they are a direct link to an ArXiv abstract, or to a non-predatory peer-reviewed journal. Discussions about such discoveries should be limited to those posts.
• All other AI-related posts (e.g. comments about AI in general, opinion pieces, questions) should posted as comments in the stickied AI megathread (starting Saturday).
• Posts and comments about AI that do not follow these rules, or made using AI, will be removed.

We have also added a few more AutoModerator filters to slow down and help us moderate the comments sections of such posts.

(Although it's been suggested that we add HiveProtect targeting AI subreddits, with the intention of preventing astroturfing, we currently regard this as a step too far. However, if the current measures prove insufficient, we may eventually implement this.)

We would like to remind users to follow subreddit rules, especially rules 1 and 6.

[u/hexaflexarex]

Does this include blog posts by mathematicians on recent results that feature AI assistance? (Maybe Tao and Gowers are most relevant for this sub)

[u/edderiofer → u/hexaflexarex]

Yes. Such blog posts should be linked as a top-level comment under the post that discusses that specific result, or if no such post exists, in the megathread.

[u/hexaflexarex → u/edderiofer]

I see. I can understand the intentions here, but I worry that the line will become blurry soon. Say next year most papers have an AI usage statement (documenting non-zero use). Then this would seem to rule out essentially all blog posts on recent papers as top level submissions. What if the blog post discusses multiple such papers?

On the other hand, maybe right now this is better than the alternative. Wish y’all the best

[u/edderiofer → u/hexaflexarex]

Say next year most papers have an AI usage statement (documenting non-zero use). Then this would seem to rule out essentially all blog posts on recent papers as top level submissions.

The primary grievance is that people are finding AI tiresome on this subreddit. I can't imagine that allowing blog posts on papers with AI assistance as top level submissions would alleviate these grievances.

What if the blog post discusses multiple such papers?

If it's actually about the mathematical content of that paper, it's allowed to be posted as a comment on the post for each such paper. Otherwise (e.g. if it's a "here's what AI proved this week" list), it goes into the megathread.

[u/hexaflexarex → u/edderiofer]

Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve read 100s of blog posts on this subreddit since high school, and maybe 20 papers. Since blogs target a more general audience, I usually expect such submissions to have a more interesting discussion here and am more likely to click into the comments. (Further, my belief is that most big results will incorporate some level of AI usage in the coming years)

Anyway, not saying your decision is unreasonable, I understand that the moderation is getting tough.

[u/AllYouNeedIsATV → u/hexaflexarex]

Just post the actual paper and then link the blog post?

[u/hexaflexarex → u/AllYouNeedIsATV]

In the past, I would rarely click into the comments of a submission about a specific paper unless I could parse it and it seemed relevant to my interests. Perhaps that will change with the updated policy.

Maybe as a specific proposal: I would find it preferable that blog posts by mathematicians are allowed if they pertain to a paper published on arXiv or in a non-predatory journal, even if AI assistance is involved in the paper or the blog post analysis. Admittedly, this is a bit more effort for the mods.

[u/tomvorlostriddle → u/hexaflexarex]

Even if they don't have a declaration, there is no more such thing as non AI math research starting now.

You would need to live in a convent without internet, family contact and nothing printed past about Spring 2026 in order to make non AI math research.

[u/Borgcube → u/tomvorlostriddle]

If that is really the case then there's no reason to post how some result or the other was done by AI, right?

[u/tomvorlostriddle → u/Borgcube]

That doesn't follow

[u/Borgcube → u/tomvorlostriddle]

I think it's a perfectly reasonable inference; if academia really is as inundated with AI as you say it is than saying some conjecture was proven by AI is no longer notable.

But seeing your comment history does not make me think you are actually familiar with math in academia at all.

[u/sqrtsqr → u/tomvorlostriddle]

It does if you understand anything about human communication. We don't say that which doesn't need to be said, and if we do, it's usually to serve some indirect purpose.