Leiden Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics

Signatories

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

Sign Declaration
1479 Signatories
  1. Fernando Pestana da Costa ORCID Professor, Universidade Aberta
  2. Jakob Führer ORCID Institute for Algebra, Johannes Kepler University of Linz
  3. Todor Antić ORCID PhD student, Charles University
  4. Jashandeep Thind verified email Indian Institute of Science
    Comment

    Amongst the many ethical concerns that come from the corporations that have created these tools, the ethics of where these data centres are put, how much resources they steal from the local population should be of great concern. So must the light be on what goes into training these models. The hours and hours of manual labour put in by marginalised community workers in procuring data for these models. This mass exploitation of natural and human resources must be kept in mind whenever one is using these LLMs or other generative AI.

  5. Ana Martinez-Pastor ORCID Full professor, Universitat Politècnica de València
  6. Davide Barbieri ORCID Universidad Autonoma de Madrid Departamento de Matematicas
    Comment

    I think we mathematicians should also try to discuss in public about 2 other aspects of AI proficiency in mathematics. First is the reason why we have this: the main motivation for the industry was the control of hallucinations, which are the main technical drawback of LLM preventing them to be used in full automation in sectors such as healthcare, but also finance and the military. This is a path that, if it works, will produce more illness diagnoses entirely made by machines, more activities in the financial markets entirely made by machines, more war actions entirely made by machines. I am happy as a mathematician to see that this strategy is not working (for the moment), but I would add this to the ethical aspects of our giving contributions and feedbacks to this whole process. Second is the issue with young minds. Mathematics is also struggle, failure and stepping out of comfort zones. As such, it is a practice of humbleness, of consideration of implications of our statements (and actions), and ultimately of development of a critical mind. If we remove the struggle and the failure during the learning, because we provide continuous machine support to each young mind who first encounters mathematical problems: will it change something? Should we mathematicians, who have had a traditional education, occupy part of our time in thinking how to allow the people who are currently in ages 6-23 to have access to the broader formative aspects of mathematics, that may be greatly reduced by an "intuitive" use of AI? Young students asking an LLM how to solve a mathematical problem without doing the effort, may well learn how to solve that mathematical problem, but the overfitting with this procedure is extremely higher, and the struggle gets close to zero. Isn't this a societal long term risk too?

  7. Amar Yumnam
  8. Devi Prasad verified email Indian Institute of Science
  9. Marta Sanz-Solé ORCID Professor emeritus , University of Barcelona
  10. Emanuele Prati verified email University of Padua
  11. Adrian Detavernier ORCID Faculteit Ingenieurswetenschappen en Architectuur, Universiteit Gent
  12. Raphael Appenzeller ORCID Heidelberg University
  13. Alessandro Della Corte ORCID Professor (Associate) of Mathematical Physics, Università degli Studi di Camerino
  14. Nikolaos Panagiotopoulos ORCID On Board Computers and Data Handling Engineer, European Space Research and Technology Centre
    Comment

    My affiliation does not reflect the ESA's viewpoint on AI. Furthermore, I would like to add that the current technology which has been baptised as "AI" is simple a group of algorithms (very good ones though) and are able to automate tedious mental work with high risks and error margins. It requires diligent investigation and background work (here is where the human intelligence is required most) before it is implemented on real world applications, in order to bring the desired benefits, always in the frame of logic and ethics.

  15. David Evans Prifysgol Caerdydd - Cardiff University
  16. Elima Shehu ORCID MathCoRe Postdoc, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg
  17. Annegret Burtscher ORCID Associate Professor, Radboud University Nijmegen
  18. Alessandra Cattafi verified email University of Pisa
  19. Jiangyu Su verified email Fudan University
  20. Julien BREMONT ORCID Collège de France
  21. Hyeonwoo Kim verified email Pohang University of Science and Technology
  22. Leon Kester Transdisciplinary Scientist, TNO
    Comment

    Thank you so much for this initiative. I fully support the declaration and recommendations. I hope this and other initiatives evolve towards a transdisciplinary declaration on science and philosophy.

  23. André Schlichting ORCID Full Professor, Universität Ulm
  24. Johannes Lederer ORCID Chair of Data-Driven Mathematics at the University of Hamburg
    Comment

    No one knows what AI will bring tomorrow. But as mathematics community, we can—and should—take part in shaping that future.

  25. Alberto Gervani verified email Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa
  26. Ahmed Ratnani ORCID Director of The UM6P Vanguard Center, Université Mohammed VI Polytechnique
  27. Ingemar Kaj ORCID Uppsala University
  28. Jireh Loreaux ORCID Associate Professor, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
    Comment

    While there any many further steps to be taken, the Leiden declaration is a good starting point.

  29. Rémy Degenne ORCID Researcher, Inria Centre at the University of Lille
  30. Giuseppe Alessio D'Inverno ORCID Postdoctoral Researcher, Laboratoire de Mathématiques d'Orsay, Université Paris-Saclay
  31. GIUSEPPE MOLTENI ORCID associate professor, University of Milan
  32. Mingcheng Wu ORCID Master Student, Shandong University
    Comment

    I strongly support the Leiden Declaration on AI and Mathematics. Preserving human authorship, transparency, and deep understanding in mathematics is crucial.

  33. Stephan Wagner ORCID TU Graz and Uppsala University
  34. Axel Flinth verified email Umeå University
  35. Yuriy Drozd ORCID Institute of Mathematics National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
  36. Olivier Hénard ORCID Assistant Professor (MCF), Université Paris Saclay
  37. Hendrik De Bie ORCID full professor, Ghent University
  38. Georgios Skantzaris verified email Eindhoven University of Technology
  39. Jess Stubbs ORCID Data Engineer (Student)
    Comment

    What I appreciate about this declaration is that it's not a tantrum. It's not "AI bad, stop everything." It's a precise community with a precise relationship to truth, asking a precise question: what happens to knowledge when the infrastructure of verification gets undermined faster than anyone can adapt? I just hope we're not too late...

  40. Matthew Bisatt verified email Adam Mickiewicz University of Poznan
  41. Perdita Stevens ORCID University of Edinburgh, Prof. Em. Mathematics of Software Engineering
  42. Evgeny Khukhro ORCID Emeritus Professor of Pure Mathematics, University of Lincoln, UK
  43. Bart de Keijzer ORCID Department of Informatics, King's College London
  44. Shouxi Wang verified email University of Warwick
  45. Carlo Mantegazza ORCID Math. Department, University of Naples Federico II
  46. Balasubramanian Sury ORCID
  47. Anton Fehnker ORCID PhD Student, University of Copenhagen
  48. Julian Berman ORCID Columbia University
  49. Raul Rojas ORCID University of Nevada Reno
  50. Florian K. Richter ORCID École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)
  51. Danko R. Jocic verified email University of Belgrade
    Comment

    Every result in Mathematics should be categorized as (one of these): - HUMAN verified (standard) or - AI verified. Alternatively, if not verified by humans, every AI claim in Mathematics should be classified as: AI Mathematics. D.J.

  52. Juliet Floyd ORCID Borden Parker Bowne Professor of Philosophy, Boston University; Director, Boston University Center for the Humanities
    Comment

    We need such dialogue among professionals and others about our future with AI.

  53. Jan Draisma ORCID Universitat Bern
    Comment

    I find it amazing how such relatively simple models for the brain perform so well at tasks so far thought to be doable by humans only. This includes mathematical reasoning, and I am sure that these systems are here to stay. But on how they should be used in mathematical research, I wholeheartedly endorse the values and recommendations formulated out in this declaration. (Among the very real threats, I found that cognitive offloading might have been also included more prominently. Just like it is now very tempting for students to ask an LLM to do their homework, it will also be increasingly tempting for research mathematicians, and researchers in other areas, to delegate to a machine thinking that they would previously have done themselves. I am concerned about the long-term effects that this will have on our minds, and on humanity as a whole.)

  54. Michele Caselli ORCID Postdoctoral Researcher, The University of Sydney
  55. Bian Yang verified email Norwegian University of Science and Technology
    Comment

    A good initiative! But I'd suggest we use a more open and collaborative attitude towards industry and government. "Don’t believe the hype", "Regulate the artificial intelligence industry", ... maybe we can use better phrases (less emotional, more scientifically evidenced) to encourage the stakeholders to talk and find a solution together.

  56. Nicola Ciccoli ORCID University of Perugia
  57. Christian Clason ORCID Professor of Mathematical Optimization, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz
  58. Zhihua Chen verified email KTH Royal Institute of Technology
  59. Frits Spieksma ORCID Mathematics and Computer Science, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven
  60. Enrique Alvarez Vazquez ORCID Researcher, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
  61. Pierre Vandenhove ORCID Université de Mons
  62. Marc Corstanje ORCID Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  63. Jeffrey Harvey ORCID Professor, University of Chicago
  64. Iqra Altaf ORCID Postdoc, UCLA.
  65. Simone Castellan ORCID Università degli studi di Parma
  66. Nicky Hekster ORCID Executive Professor, TIAS School for Business and Society
  67. Matthias Eberhardt
  68. Detlef Steuer ORCID Helmut-Schmidt-Universität Hamburg
  69. Katherine E. Stange ORCID Full Professor, University of Colorado Boulder
  70. Veronica Calvo Cortes ORCID PhD Researcher, Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences
  71. Gerhard Weiss ORCID Professor, Maastricht University
  72. Yuhan Chi ORCID Fudan University
  73. Daniel Estévez ORCID Independent researcher
  74. Marco Streng ORCID Universiteit Leiden
  75. Stephane Mallat verified email Collège de France
  76. David Trillo ORCID
  77. Sife Shuo Wang ORCID
  78. Kim Batselier ORCID Delft University of Technology
  79. Arsham Mikaeili Namini ORCID McGill University
  80. Felipe Ponce-Vanegas ORCID Postdoc Fellow, Basque Center for Applied Mathematics
    Comment

    I am optimistic about the positive impact of AI on mathematics, and this includes making us rethink our role as mathematicians in society. But to move forward, it is important to identify and mitigate potential threats, such as impaired creativity because AI pushes us toward its own patterns of reasoning. This declaration brings up essential topics the community should address. [post written with assistance of ChatGPT to sound like a native speaker.]

  81. Innocent Maposa ORCID Dr, Stellenbosch University
    Comment

    I agree with the declaration

  82. Vandana Dwarka verified email Delft University of Technology
  83. Rogier Bos ORCID Assistant professor, Universiteit Utrecht
  84. Alexander Müller-Hermes verified email University of Oslo
  85. Alon Dogon ORCID PhD Student, Weizmann Institute of Science
  86. Christian Furrer ORCID Københavns Universitet
  87. Florian Metzger ORCID Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg
  88. Lorenzo Fantini ORCID École polytechnique
  89. Su Gao ORCID University Chair Professor, Nankai University
    Comment

    The Leiden Declaration comes at the right time and provides much needed recommendations to individual mathematicians, organizations and policy makers. I wholeheartedly endorse the recommendations in the Declaration. I view this as a great start -- now that we have found some sense of directions, the next step is for the mathematics community to take collective actions to maintain the integerity of mathematics as a human endeavor.

  90. Peter Bruin ORCID Universitair hoofddocent (associate professor), Universiteit Leiden
  91. Ruihua Wang ORCID Lecturer, Hainan Bielefeld University of Applied Sciences
  92. Lorenzo Clemente ORCID
  93. Leslie Ann Goldberg ORCID University of Oxford
  94. MAURICE J DUPRE verified email Tulane University
    Comment

    MATHEMATICS (My definition don’t blame anyone else): The ART of CREATING WAYS to HANDLE INFORMATION. As such, there are no rules other than those desired by Mathematicians to accomplish whatever purpose they have in mind. All living things must handle the information from their environment for survival. Except for humans, the WAYS are provided by evolution. Human requirements have outstripped evolution so all humans are forced to become Mathematicians. However, most use methods of little interest to others. Professional Mathematicians on the other hand develop ways which can be of wider interest. Computers only follow rules and algorithms, so even with AI are not at this time really doing mathematics, but simply a very complex version of calculation, and If they get to the level of GAI with human level AI, then the mathematics they produce is not guaranteed to be of interest to humans, and suffers from all the issues detailed in the LEIDEN DECLARATION, many of which are clearly dangerous.

  95. Gentian Zavalani ORCID PhD students, Scientists, CASUS Center for Advanced System Understanding
  96. Fabio Mogavero ORCID Associate Professor of Computer Science, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II
  97. Leo van Iersel ORCID TU Delft
  98. Maurizio Grasselli ORCID Politecnico di Milano
  99. Felix Lotter ORCID PhD Student, Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences
  100. Jordi-Lluís Figueras Romero ORCID Uppsala University