See cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/st... for what one side is saying, esp. page 2 onwards.
Clément Canonne
Researcher with public evidence across AI research.
- AI signals
- 10 past 30d
- Sources
- 9 distinct domains
- Discussions
- 25 past 30d
- Latest signal
- 5d ago
Articles & links
"We want to encourage authors to be mindful with their work, taking care that they are submitting something substantial of scholarly interest that meets arXiv's guidelines and standards." 2 submissions per month, 3 active submissions blog.arxiv.org/2026/10/01/u... (per submitt…
A list of principles put forth by mathematicians, for mathematicians and other researchers, regarding the use of AI in research. "Number #9 will surprise you!" leidendeclaration.ai
- The Leiden Declaration, released June 2, 2026, warns AI threatens proof integrity, attribution, and peer review in mathematics.
- Over 2,654 signatories including Fields Medal winner Terence Tao have endorsed the community-initiated declaration.
- The International Mathematical Union backs the declaration, which makes separate recommendations to researchers, publishers, policymakers, and AI developers.
Take some time (very little) to weigh on this: "Now Is the Time to Give LLMs Access to the ACM Digital Library" docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1F... (not that I want to influence anyone, but my own position is along the lines of "hell no.")
Nice second sentence. arxiv.org/abs/2608.113...
The report from the AI + TCS Working Group held at the @simonsinstitute.bsky.social is out, including "twelve concrete near-term recommended actions." Currently reading it: while I have some reservations, but there is some good in it! Notably items 7, 8, and 11. simons.berkele…
- The Simons Institute published 'AI and TCS: The Next Six Months' on September 28, 2026, following a two-day working group at Calvin Lab.
- The report lists twelve recommended actions, from a standardized AI methodology section in papers to grant coverage of reasonable LLM expenses.
- Discussions were informed by 134 survey responses; organizers were Tony Feng, Zeph Landau, Amit Sahai, and Nikhil Srivastava.
Our paper on Entropy Equivalence Testing was just accepted to #RANDOM2026. Congratulations to Joy (Qiping) Yang and Yash Pote, who led the charge! arxiv.org/abs/2605.23225
- Entropy equivalence testing needs significantly fewer samples than standard closeness testing for distributions.
- The paper delivers the first non-trivial closeness testing algorithm for low-degree Bayesian networks.
- Matching lower bounds establish near-optimality, revealing how hard the relaxed problem is in principle.
So many good points in this post by @nsaphra.bsky.social: only quoting a couple, to encourage you to read the others. "My colleagues and students adopt the writing quirks they read throughout the day, and their own writing becomes more like an LLM’s." nsaphra.net/post/uncanny/
Recent commentary
BREAKING NEWS: with productivity gains due to AI, Sisyphus now able to push rock up hill 10x more often
OpenAI: "We’re releasing a broad range of new mathematical results produced by an internal frontier model." (722 manuscripts)
Two people cold-emailed me today about an open problem I proposed at a conference in 2024. Both attached what is without any doubt the verbatim output of an AI model, asking for my feedback on it. tl;dr: this is not OK. I will answer your email, but I will not spend time if you yourself haven't.
For context, to ground the conversation and explain one of the issues. USD20M, which is a self-reported (likely low-balled) estimate of what OpenAI burned in *one week* in their scooping race, would fund 100 full-time postdoctoral positions for 2 years (including overhead). 100 postdocs. 2 years.
Also, I don't know if there is any way to be clearer, but: If you are a theoretical computer scientist or mathematician currently working for OpenAI, you are not one of the good guys.
Me, reading some badly written one-shotted AI "preprint" claiming to solve an open problem in the least interesting way possible
Uploading one-shotted AI "expositions" of one-shotted AI-generated papers is totally bonkers to me. What value do you think this has? And what do you think your contribution is, "access to buttons?"
Preparing a blog post, and as a side product I wrote some short thoughts on AI in reviewing, in TCS and beyond.
The OpenAI breakthrough on the unit distance problem seems genuinely impressive to my semi-layman eye. (It is!) One possible takeaway, though, is that if you throw an incredible amount of money and resources at focused research, there WILL be impressive progress. I wish we tried that, too.
The "paperclip maximizer" is a silly thought experiment: an entity mistakes an (imperfect) metric for an absolute goal, and proceeds to diverting all resources to producing paperclips. Silly. In other news, Anthropic and OpenAI are burning millions in a race to establish Erdős' 9173439 conjectures.
In Clément Canonne's orbit
Center = Clément Canonne. Left = members they follow (green edges). Right = members who follow them (blue edges). Top = mutual follows (orange edges, slightly larger). Drag any node to reposition; click to open that profile.
Are you Clément Canonne? Show it.
Add the Who’s Who of AI badge to your site or bio. It links back to this profile.
Markdown: [](https://aiweekly.co/whos-who/person/ccanonne-github-io)