Leiden Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics

Signatories

The primary signatory list now lives on the homepage below the declaration text.

Sign Declaration
4180 Signatories
  1. Giuseppe Melfi ORCID University of Neuchâtel
  2. Benoît Bonnet-Weill ORCID Chargé de Recherche CNRS, Laboratoire des Signaux et Systèmes (L2S)
  3. Xavier Généreux ORCID Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
  4. Nina Kamcev ORCID University of Zagreb
  5. Peter Spreij ORCID University of Amsterdam
  6. Bik Soon Sia ORCID PHD student, Tsinghua University
  7. Kasso Okoudjou ORCID Robinson Professor of Mathematics, Tufts University
  8. Rotem Assouline ORCID Institut de mathématiques de Jussieu – Paris Rive Gauche
  9. Marcio Aurelio Soares Santos ORCID Managing Partner, Tridon
  10. Georg Nawratil ORCID TU Wien, Senior Scientist
  11. Alex McAvoy ORCID Assistant Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  12. Rob Arthan Honorary lecturer at Queen Mary University of London
  13. Konrad Burnik ORCID Independent Researcher
  14. Xinyang Liu verified email University of Calgary
  15. Pablo Barenbaum ORCID CONICET
  16. Sondre Kvamme ORCID Associate Professor, Norwegian University of Science and Technology
  17. François Ziegler ORCID Associate Professor, Georgia Southern University
    Comment

    The AI chatbots/“summaries” behave like loudmouth vandals with no manners. They show up uninvited, serve what they know without due credit to authors (whether by formal CC BY-SA or simple decency), and when they don’t, keep making up one wrong answer after another rather than acknowledge ignorance, even when asked to. They mislead students into believing that nothing is worth learning anymore, and to that end, completely misrepresent both the nature of mathematics (“problem solving” vs. creation of language and understanding) and their machines’ allegedly “unaided” successes. Their ethos to “get things wrong first and hope to fix later” is antithetical to ours as mathematicians.

  18. Thomas Selig ORCID Associate Professor, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University
    Comment

    I support this excellent declaration.

  19. oliver knill verified email Harvard University
  20. Luis Narváez Macarro ORCID Catedrático, Universidad de Sevilla
  21. Massimiliano Morini ORCID University of Parma
  22. Tudor Micu ORCID Assistant Professor, Babeș-Bolyai University
  23. Maria Chiara Ricciuti ORCID Imperial College London
  24. Zoran Vondraček ORCID University of Zagreb
  25. 秦宇轩 (QIN Yuxuan) verified email Student, Jilin University
  26. Christine Huyghe CNRS, Université Marie et Louis Pasteur, Besançon, France
  27. Stephen Kudla ORCID University of Toronto
  28. Mani A ORCID Scientist, Indian Statistical Institute
  29. Xiaoyu ZHANG ORCID Research Assistant, University of Duisburg-Essen
  30. Samuel Petite ORCID Professeur des Universités, Université de Picardie Jules Verne
  31. B. David Redman, Jr. verified email Delta College
  32. Markus Reineke ORCID Professor of Algebra, Ruhr University Bochum
  33. Benjamin Hackl ORCID University of Graz
  34. Donatella Iacono ORCID Mathematics, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro
  35. Muriel Botey ORCID Full Profesor, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya
  36. Feng Su verified email Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University
  37. Clemens Heuberger ORCID University of Klagenfurt
  38. Klemens Fellner ORCID Full Professor, University of Graz
  39. Morten Lüders verified email Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg
  40. Charles Dufour ORCID Doctoral Assistant, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
  41. Tomasz Dudek verified email Jagiellonian University Cracow
  42. ke liu ORCID East China Normal University
    Comment

    It's an amusing thing, maybe it will have a huge change in decades.

  43. Jing Huang ORCID PhD of Computer Science, Tianjin University
    Comment

    Suggestions, use the following A more than B to reduce workload: A: to build relatively determined pipelines assisted by AI (these pipelines may be over-complicated for small use before AI apperas) B: to give work to it and check it later.

  44. Joerg Thuswaldner verified email Montanuniversität Leoben
  45. Zhuoran Chen verified email Dalian Martime University
  46. MATTEO FOCARDI ORCID Full Professor, Università degli Studi di Firenze
  47. Philippe Geril Retired external scientific adviser Ghent University
  48. Klaus Mattis ORCID PhD Student, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz
  49. Daniel Strzelecki ORCID Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń
  50. Robert Alonzo Lyman ORCID Assistant Professor, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
  51. Mathis Duguin verified email EPFL - EPF Lausanne
    Comment

    Although I agree with the direction taken by this declaration, I believe some of the philosophical problems associated to AI use are understated. Most notably the usage of AI as a "research assistant", which seems to be endorsed by the vast majority of the community, even when in agreement of this Declaration. Mathematical dialogue between experts, non-experts, students, and teachers, is essential to the discipline and should not be overlooked. Yet the usage of AI as a companion in learning undermines a large portion of this dialogue. The "infinite patience" of LLMs and the near instant access to your most pressing questions is used as justification for an alternative method of discourse, one where correspondence and its associated waiting times, arguments, and miscommunications are bypassed. It appears to me that the standard for dialogue has been relegated to a plan B in the research pipeline of individuals. We need to seriously ask ourselves how highly we value efficiency, speed, and productivity in our community. Do we strive for a large body of questions and answers and a means to speed up the process of producing them, or do we work for the means of resolution in and of themselves? I would argue we should prioritize the latter, and yet our publishing culture and the recent use of AI seems to indicate that we first place value in the former. These developments are opening up a conversation which I reckon should have been of actuality many years prior. It is unfortunate that we are now considering such questions under the pressure of a transition period whose outcome is hard to predict. It remains to be seen if we can go beyond.

  52. Drazen Adamovic ORCID University of Zagreb
  53. Ran Tao ORCID Max-Planck-Institut für Mathematik in den Naturwissenschaften
  54. Dario Prandi ORCID CentraleSupélec, Laboratoire des Signaux et des Systémes, Université Paris-Saclay
  55. Daniel Harlow ORCID Associate Professor of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Comment

    As a physicist who uses mathematics extensively I am happy to sign this well-written statement

  56. Bruno Le Floch ORCID CNRS and Sorbonne
  57. Riccardo Bonalli verified email CNRS
  58. Lukas Bonfert ORCID Postdoc, Leibniz University Hannover
  59. Gunnar Hornig ORCID University of Dundee
  60. Sonja Štimac ORCID University of Zagreb
  61. Alessandro Barenghi ORCID Associate professor, Politecnico di Milano
  62. Daniel Brosch ORCID University of Klagenfurt
  63. Daniele Valtorta ORCID University of Milan-Bicocca
  64. Michel Broué Université Paris Cité
  65. jos Baeten ORCID
  66. YeonJae Hong verified email Postdoc, Gyeongsang National University
  67. Sougata Bose ORCID Université de Mons
  68. Ananya Muddukrishna ORCID Researcher, Developer, Ericsson (Sweden)
  69. Bruno Cessac ORCID Inria
  70. Sukmoon Huh ORCID Professor, Sungkyunkwan University
  71. Freek Witteveen ORCID Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica
  72. Bernard Leclerc verified email Université de Caen Basse Normandie
  73. Martijn Brehm ORCID PhD student, University of Amsterdam
  74. Radu Toma ORCID Postdoc, IMJ-PRG
  75. Tracey Balehowsky ORCID Associate Professor, University of Calgary
  76. Charlie Beil ORCID Independent researcher
  77. Nicolas Resch ORCID Assistant Professor, Universiteit van Amsterdam
  78. Susanne Pumpluen ORCID Associate Professor, University of Nottingham
  79. Enric Florit ORCID Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
  80. Corey Lionis verified email University of Melbourne
    Comment

    Entities in the private sector are interested in devaluing mathematical ideas and reasoning by quantitatively demonstrating that AI outperforms mathematicians at generating proofs. Yet understanding and development in mathematics is not limited to the production of proofs, and mathematical skills have far-reaching applications across a wide range of human activity. As educators and researchers it is imperative that we understand the benefits and risks of AI adoption and engage in our work ethically, seeking as ever to extend our community understanding of mathematical ideas and to enable those we teach to use advanced logico-mathematical reasoning.

  81. Andrew Tonks ORCID Universidad de Málaga
  82. Valentino Zhou verified email University of Padua
  83. Torsten Wedhorn ORCID Professor, TU Darmstadt
  84. Vicente Sobrinho Universidade Federal do Cariri
  85. Peter W. Michor ORCID University of Vienna
    Comment

    When developed and used with care and consideration, AI can become a valuable tool for research, education, well organized storage of the growing body of knowledge, and applications of mathematics. Under the existing incentives for research (publish or perish) it can also inundate the published body of mathematical results with a deluge of articles whose correctness and relevance can be very difficult to judge (one could call them fake articles). This declaration summarizes very well the dangers lying ahead.

  86. Simone Linz ORCID Associate Professor, University of Auckland
  87. Guido Sciavicco ORCID
  88. Philippe Nadeau ORCID CNRS, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1
  89. Srijan Khatri ORCID Graduate Student (Masters), University of Calgary
  90. Jonathan Glidewell verified email George Mason University
  91. Muhammad Ismail Yunus ORCID Postgraduate Student, Khalifa University of Science and Technology
    Comment

    I wish my work is being assess really rigorously with a hope I am being guided back to where I should be if I ever abuse any use of AI in my work.

  92. Bai-Ling Wang verified email Australian National University
  93. Eamonn O'Brien ORCID University of Auckland
  94. Felix Lazebnik verified email University of Delaware
  95. Andrew Oxner Engineer
    Comment

    It is with growing unease that I see AI increasingly taking on “practicing” roles in law, medicine, academia, and engineering where professional standards and certifications typically apply. I appreciate the concerns expressed here as they apply both to mathematics and more broadly to professional activities across-the-board. Hopefully this will help raise awareness and preserve human agency as we advance this exciting new technology.

  96. Ezequiel Maderna ORCID Investigador Titular, CIMAT
  97. Jose Simental ORCID Instituto de Matemáticas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
  98. Jomar Fajardo Rabajante ORCID Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of the Philippines Los Banos
    Comment

    I support the declaration. I agree that mathematical organizations should establish institutionalized and proactive review, checking and validation of mathematical researches and outputs. In this era of too much information, we need to uphold rigor and reliable mathematical results, to lessen negative impacts to the society and to maintain long-term trust to the mathematical community.

  99. Bruno PREMOSELLI ORCID Université Libre de Bruxelles
  100. Jeroen S.W. Lamb ORCID Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London