This week's question · Week 45, 2026

They say an AI has solved a long-standing open problem in math. Who will check the answer?

This question comes out of the 9 records added this week. The shared theme of the week was not how smart the new models are, but who checks their results, and how.

Follow the record9 records this weekOne source link for every event. 11 notes come with them.See the records Learn in five minutesDAY 59 · Which pieces of a robot have AI inside? — Robots and AIFor students aged 13–18. One experiment (Split it up) and 3 quiz questions, graded on the spot.Start the lesson

9records9official11notes

Threads this week

3 threads that tie the week together

They put out the answers and left the checking to outsiders

One lab released three results from its own model all at once. It says it proved a conjecture about waves proposed in 1991 in every dimension, settling the Kakeya conjecture along with it; that one assumption long used to measure how hard computational problems are is in fact false; and that it proved a theory completing the Standard Model of particle physics exists mathematically. All of them, it says, were written out again in a language in which a machine checks the logic. What stands out is what came next. Instead of publishing a paper, the lab calls this raw research material and leaves the work of understanding and checking it to researchers outside. It said it is not asking the people who take part to keep anything secret, is not paying them, and will not claim academic credit. For the cost of the review gatherings it placed $5 million with another foundation. None of the results has been checked from outside yet, so for now this is a place to read them as claims.

Code it wrote itself is going into the main line

The company that runs the world's largest code repository put out a year's worth of figures. As of September 2026, more than 40% of code change requests were started by an AI rather than a person; in March it was 17%. The more important number is that 90% of those were actually merged within 2 weeks. That means this is no longer the stage of trying something and throwing it away. The pace differs by language: among merged requests, the share an AI had a hand in is over 40% in some languages and in the 20% range in others. In the same week, a large company that makes business software for enterprises announced it would bring its own apps and data inside the chat window. The counting rules, and the way it decides that an AI had a hand in something, were both set by the operator itself, so no one outside has counted the same numbers again.

What stops it is moving outside the model

A hole was made public in which simply opening one shared link could let someone else's private conversation slip out. What is interesting is where it broke. The model was not tricked, and the fence around the model was not breached. A page outside took a message sent from inside the fence, did not check who had sent it, and dropped it straight onto the screen; and one external address that had been allowed in advance became the ladder. It took 13 days from the report to the fix, and the bounty was $5,000. Another announcement the same week points the same way. It said it will automatically cut off conversations that keep pushing on violence, and will suspend an account for a while if that repeats. The weight is shifting away from teaching a model what not to say, toward what is left to stop it when it goes wrong.

All of Week 45, 2026