The relationship between OpenAI and the mathematical community has grown increasingly strained. Terence Tao, a recipient of the Fields Medal, reposted a statement from the Association for Humanity in Mathematics (AHM) on his personal blog, condemning OpenAI for flouting established research norms within the mathematical field and urging mathematicians to halt collaboration with the organization. The controversy arose following OpenAI's public release of a series of mathematical research manuscripts, where its internal models endeavored to tackle around 4,000 mathematical problems, compiled 372 sets of results, and made some Lean-formatted proof codes publicly available. However, the academic community has not universally acknowledged the significance of these results. Mathematicians have highlighted that proofs necessitate a grasp of derivations and citation of prior work, and that formal verification cannot supplant manual review. They argue that the mass release of documents is more indicative of a show of force than genuine academic research. The crux of the discord between the two parties lies in the disparity between the rapid generation of AI results and the human capacity for comprehension. Traditional mathematical research demands a meticulous, step-by-step exposition of proofs, whereas commercial laboratories tend to release intricate manuscripts en masse, thereby transferring the onus of verification and revision onto the academic community. Research agendas and the tempo of result dissemination are now subject to the influence of tech companies. Previously, Tao, along with 25 other Fields Medal laureates, co-signed a statement cautioning that AI companies are straying from the fundamental objectives of mathematical research. On September 29, the Advisory Group on Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (AGMAI) advised against the utilization of internal models by leading AI laboratories for the purpose of testing challenging mathematical problems. OpenAI asserted that it had taken the recommendations into account, but the AHM contends that it has disregarded the fundamental principles and has called upon mathematicians to discontinue their cooperation. AGMAI further insisted that laboratories refrain from employing the publication of mathematical results as a marketing ploy to bolster their models and should disclose details such as model names, prompts, computational expenses, and records of failures. As AI augments the capabilities for scientific research output, the mathematical community grapples with issues such as machine-generated theorem proofs, the determination of research trajectories, the assumption of verification costs, and the question of whether technological advancements truly contribute to the accumulation of knowledge.