Prof. Wray Buntine retweeted
Burkina Faso has put beauty pageants on pause for now and instead held a science competition involving 84 young girls, who went up against each other in mathematics, physics and chemistry.
The idea is to push STEM education and challenge the view that those subjects are only for men.
The top five in each subject got prizes, with first-place winners receiving 2 million CFA francs, a motorcycle, a laptop and other rewards.
Every finalist also received a scholarship and university support to help them build the skills the country will need going forward.
Prof. Wray Buntine retweeted
In the future, "AI for Science" will be a meaningless expression. Every domain scientist will also be an AI scientist. It won't need a special title. A chemist who uses AI will just be a normal chemist.
Prof. Wray Buntine retweeted
All faculty advertisements must include the line “A proven ability and willingness to be micromanaged is especially preferred in successful candidates.”
Prof. Wray Buntine retweeted
What is TMLR doing under a 300% increase in submissions?
- Suspensions of >150 authors
- Publicly naming major violations
- Submission quotas distinguishing slop patterns
- Desk rejections 6% → 53%; focus on clarity
- AI reviews evaluating soundness
blog.tmlr.org/2026/adapting-…
Yeah ... what are we going to do. Something has to change in academic publishing – at Melbourne, Victoria
As an Editor, in past ~6mo, we are receiving an avalanche of unsolicited review articles (“scoping” “systematic”, narrative, NOS) on topics and ?s NO ONE EVER has asked and clearly with heavy AI lift. Even the cover letters all read the same…alarming and sad. #publishing
Interesting because it's not STEM. – at Melbourne, Victoria
Political scientists and economists: we're looking for researchers with deep expertise to come work with us for a unique 4-month fellowship at @AnthropicAI. You'll work closely with us to evaluate, improve, and apply Claude's capabilities in your field. It's going to be extremely fun and interesting work, and definitely worth taking a short leave from your university for if you need to!
More info here:
job-boards.greenhouse.io/ant…
Prof. Wray Buntine retweeted
Your doctor cuts you off about 11 seconds after you start talking. Researchers literally timed it in a 2018 study. That number is why Google's new Lancet result is bigger than it looks.
In the study, 98 real urgent care patients texted with Google's AI days before their appointment. No scans, no exam, no bloodwork, just an unhurried conversation about what was wrong. That alone put the correct final diagnosis on the AI's list 90% of the time.
Sounds like magic until you learn what medicine has known for 50 years.
Back in 1975, a British team published a study in the BMJ tracking which part of a visit actually produced the right diagnosis. The physical exam? The labs? Nope. In 82% of cases, the patient's story alone got the doctor there. Everything else mostly confirmed what listening had already found.
So the playbook for accurate diagnosis has existed since 1975. Let the patient talk. Medicine just built a system where nobody has time to run it, and an 18-minute appointment with 11 seconds of uninterrupted patient talk was the result.
Google didn't build a superhuman doctor. It built the first clinician in 50 years with enough time to use the method we already proved works.
And my favorite detail buried in the study... physicians who read the AI's pre-visit summary said it changed how they treated the patient in over half of cases. Hand a doctor the full story before you walk in the room and you get different medicine.
Turns out the most advanced medical instrument Google ever shipped is a conversation that doesn't get interrupted.
Today @TheLancet published our AMIE study with @BIDMC_Medicine, the first prospective study of patient-facing conversational diagnostics in a real clinic.
AMIE is a research system people can chat with before doctors appointments. Testing AMIE outside the lab with real urgent care patients showed how technology can help gather medical histories safely. Clinicians reported that the summaries helped them prepare for visits in 75% of cases and influenced their approach to care in more than half. AMIE’s differential diagnoses also matched the doctors’ final diagnoses 90% of the time giving clinicians more time to focus on patient care.
It’s Google’s first-ever paper in The Lancet’s main journal!
Prof. Wray Buntine retweeted
Such an irony in the current times -- In the wake of AI's progress in fields with "verifiable" outputs, maths, arguably one of humanity’s most rigorous intellectual pursuits, faces an existential crisis. At the same time, many other "academic" areas in humanities continue to thrive on vague and abstract claims that I don't think AI (or humans) can ever define how to verify. :) Ironically, intellectual rigor becomes a liability, while intellectual fuzziness remains a survival strategy
Prof. Wray Buntine retweeted
Replying to @BachFrancis
(1/7) I'd like to provide some additional context for the remarks that can be found in this interview.
(2/7) My discomfort with the attention being paid to existential risk---and with the ongoing dominance of the public discussion of such risks by a few so-called thought leaders---is that there's an elephant in the room that is being missed. That elephant is the effect of all of this discussion on young people, and indeed the effect---beginning with social media a decade ago---of information technology on young lives broadly speaking.
(3/7) I recently read an interview by Jill Lepore in which she reports on discussions that she had recently with a group of college students: "They had just three things to say. One, social media completely destroyed their childhoods. Two, AI is destroying their college education and their likely prospects for employment. And three, what the hell are we all doing?" To add a fourth bullet that I've heard in similar discussions: "I'm not going to have children, because the existential risk is just too high."
(4/7) Please contemplate such a statement, those of you who think that it's OK that the public, widely diffused, discussion coming from seemingly authoritative figures is so adamant about existential risk.
(5/7) Let me add that I have little interest in a debate about what "superintelligence" might mean, or whether we're currently seeing the emergence of superintelligence. For what it's worth, I would certainly agree that the solution of extremely challenging math problems (for example) exhibits a very impressive form of intelligence, although I would want to argue that such intelligence is impossible to dissociate from the collective of humans that provided data to the machine learning system (which itself has become a kind of collective).
(6/7) Such philosophical debates are entertaining and even important, but when they then head in the direction of "when such superintelligence emerges, there's a good chance that it will want to kill all humans", I say "science fiction". Again, I don't think that it's bad to consider such thoughts, but I strongly believe that it's bad for society, and especially young people, for such thoughts, unaccompanied by any serious real-world analysis, to become a dominant form of discourse of the era.
(7/7) We are damaging human lives, and the consequences of that damage will no doubt be a major theme of the next several decades.
Prof. Wray Buntine retweeted
An article in @insidehighered argues that universities may be helping to create the research integrity problems they are trying to solve.
The argument is simple: if we judge academic success largely by publication counts, journal prestige and citations, we should not be surprised when people find ways to maximise those numbers.
That can mean salami-slicing research, citation gaming, purchased authorship, paper mills and, increasingly, AI-assisted fraud.
The authors suggest a different approach: assess fewer papers, but assess them properly; broaden our definition of impact; and pay much closer attention to suspicious citation practices.
Perhaps the bigger question is this:
Are research integrity problems really just problems with individual researchers, or are they also a predictable consequence of the systems universities have created to measure academic success?
Read the full articlle here: buff.ly/e3qvuzG
Prof. Wray Buntine retweeted
This could be a game changer.
Researchers just published a paper on a smart ring that can continuously monitor glucose, ketones, vitamin C, uric acid, lactate, and alcohol through sweat.
Prof. Wray Buntine retweeted
GPT-6 Pro finds supposed errors in academic papers all the time, just as part of other work. Confirming the errors & learning their importance would still take a lot of time today, but it will get faster. We don't have the right mechanisms in place to deal a flood of corrections.
Prof. Wray Buntine retweeted
NEW: Healthleap just raised $38M from Sequoia, First Round, and Hummingbird Ventures.
Its clinical AI screens every adult inpatient daily for often-missed conditions, and is already deployed across 40+ hospitals including Penn Medicine, Cedars-Sinai, and Houston Methodist.
Prof. Wray Buntine retweeted
I was interested in whether mathematicians considered these proofs important and interesting. So I went through the quotes and picked those that are about the problems specifically, not impact on the community or comms - lots of people very pissed about that (c.80% of comments). I would say that nearly every person that touched on the problems solved or the solutions was impressed.
"Quasi-Riemann is a result that I thought was complete science fiction"
"I am stunned."
"These were almost all the major open problems in my field!"
"It does feel like the end of an era where the ability to solve problems was a distinguishing feature of being a mathematician."
"Today my chief feelings are disorientation and bewilderment."
"This timeline is crazy. I feel conflicted."
"I am both amazed at the results and the technological advances and scared at the fact that the pace is much higher than I can keep up with."
"I got really impressed by the resolution of the free factor problem [...] since I had been wrong about the expected outcome"
"I was at first slightly underwhelmed by what was in there, especially given the results in my own field of arithmetic geometry."
"Many of the AI-generated proofs appear to introduce clever new ideas that will be fruitful once digested, while also building upon the existing contributions of countless human mathematicians past and present"
"I was initially surprised when I saw the resolution to the free group factor problem."
"Assuming that these proofs are correct, I must say that I am very impressed about these results"
"I was amazed by the scale and breadth of the recent results coming out of OpenAI in their announcement."
"I am struck by how recognisable the individual parts are. The wilder creativity lies in their counterintuitive composition. I would probably have given up on these combinations, or talked myself out of trying them."
"The scope of last night’s announcement is truly breathtaking. Until very recently, I would not have imagined that the frontiers of mathematics could move so far in one day. Beyond the remarkable list of problems that appear to have been solved, I am deeply impressed by the diverse forms of reasoning sketched in the documents that accompany the announcement."
"Scrolling through the list of claimed results, I alternated between shock and apathy repeatedly."
"If I had to pick one personally, the equivalence of strong Ulam stability and amenability (along with Dixmier’s problem) has particularly touched me, as I have spent several years thinking about it seriously. The solution seems to combine Furstenberg’s boundary theory with quantum circuits from quantum computing, how wild is that?"
"Not a single one of the major open problems I have publicly mentioned throughout my career (whether in a talk, a lecture, an article, or even a grant proposal) was left untouched by the announcement. Everything has been claimed to be proved."
"The “Big OpenAI drop” is nothing short of historic, possibly the single most important day in the history of mathematics thus far. Many of the problems with now proposed solutions in the Oct. 6, 2026 drop would represent huge contributions to their respective fields: quasi-RH, the second part of Hilbert’s 16th, Hilbert’s 10th over Q, the Hodge Conjecture of CM abelian varieties, Goldfeld’s conjecture, fast integer multiplication… They are undeniably huge contributions."
"I was not expecting the magnitude of some of these results. Most particularly, seeing a proof of no zeros of Dirichlet L-functions to the right of Res=7/8 (and a second, short, proof of no Siegel zeros) is absolutely shocking to me, but there are many other breathtaking advances."
"I was stunned by the claimed solution to determining the dimension of self-similar measures on the line (Item 148 in the Review) and related problems."
"When I saw the 7/8 bound for the zero-free region of the Riemann zeta function among the released problems, I was genuinely shocked. I had always thought there was a broad consensus among mathematicians that the Quasi-Riemann Hypothesis was completely out of reach with existing mathematics. Apparently, we were wrong."
"I find many of the results to be beautiful, and I’d love to understand them more deeply."
"I was so surprised that they announced the solution to the Falconer distance problem, local smoothing estimates for wave operators, and bounds for Kakeya maximal functions. These were central problems in harmonic analysis, and my friend has worked on one of these problems for 6 years"
Well worth reading: proofsandprompts.com/2026/10…
Exciting result for AI in Medicine. It's non trivial because it needs conversational training and diagnostic training.
Today @TheLancet published our AMIE study with @BIDMC_Medicine, the first prospective study of patient-facing conversational diagnostics in a real clinic.
AMIE is a research system people can chat with before doctors appointments. Testing AMIE outside the lab with real urgent care patients showed how technology can help gather medical histories safely. Clinicians reported that the summaries helped them prepare for visits in 75% of cases and influenced their approach to care in more than half. AMIE’s differential diagnoses also matched the doctors’ final diagnoses 90% of the time giving clinicians more time to focus on patient care.
It’s Google’s first-ever paper in The Lancet’s main journal!
Wow, did you publish at an A-ranked ML/AI conference recently. Submit to our encore track and visit Melbourne right before NeurIPS!





























