СЕМИНАР "ГРЕЧЕСКАЯ МАТЕМАТИКА"

Dear all, Below is a message (from Nicolas Curien) and some background discussion concerning the temporary closing of submissions for AIHP, EJP, ECP, SPA, and Bernoulli.  Best, Fredrik //// Dear colleagues and friends, The increase of submissions due to AI has put the editorial system under pressure. After discussing with several EiC we decided to momentarily close the submission system on Monday 19th October, for three weeks. Please do not circulate the information before next Monday otherwise we will have a tsunami of submissions this week. But I count on you to relay the information as largely as possible next Monday to make the message percolate among the community. A message will be displayed on the web-page of the journal : "The journal is temporarily pausing submissions until November 9th while the editorial board and publishers develop new editorial policies, guidelines, and practical solutions to handle the substantial increase in submissions. New submissions will not be possible during this period. Comments and proposals for solutions are most welcome." This action concerns AIHP, EJP, ECP, SPA and Bernoulli. The Annals journals did not want to join this action. In the meantime, we will make our best to implement new tools in the EJMS system. A list of ideas is available below in the message that we sent to the IMS/Bernoulli board. If you have further (doable) suggestions, please share with us. Best, Nicolas. Dear publishers, dear Presidents of IMS, Bernoulli and IHP, We, the Editors-in-Chief of probability journals co-sponsored or supported by your societies, are facing serious difficulties. The explosion in submissions, largely driven by the rapid development of AI, has put extreme pressure on our editorial systems, our boards, and ultimately our colleagues. Following extensive discussions, we agree on several points and ask for urgent action: 1. A temporary closure of the submission system of our journals. 2. The development of new guidelines and policies. 3. Improvements to the EJMS software to include new tools that would help us cope with the situation. 1. Why we ask for a temporary closure At the current pace of submissions, we simply do not have enough time to carry out the editorial job properly. The alternative is either to accumulate an enormous backlog or to make increasingly rapid decisions on the basis of incomplete information. Neither is fair to authors, and both risk undermining trust in our journals. Moreover, the current workload has become unsustainable, to the point that some members of our editorial boards have informed us that they are considering stepping down—a risk we cannot afford to take. A short closure (two weeks?) would allow us to implement immediately several concrete measures that could already make the situation substantially better when submissions reopen (see below). A temporary closure would also send a clear and constructive message of hope to the community: our journals are responding actively to the transformation brought about by AI. During the temporary closure, we would like a clear message to appear prominently on each journal website, along the following lines: The journal is temporarily pausing submissions until [date here] while the editorial board and publishers develop new editorial policies, guidelines, and practical solutions to handle the substantial increase in submissions. Comments and proposals for solutions are most welcome. New submissions will not be possible during this period. 2. Improvement of EJMS During the closure of the system, we would like to see urgent actions taken within the IMS/EJMS. Some of these tools are easy to implement within the closing period (e.g. standardized AI disclosure statement, rejection ban, consent by authors to AI assisted prescreening when submitting to journals that decide to adopt this measure…), some others require more profound changes. We provide below a list of suggestions and would be happy to discuss them.

Failure to participate in such a session, or inability to provide a satisfactory account of the submitted work, may lead to rejection of the manuscript and, in serious cases, to a temporary ban on further submissions to the journal. 4. Others. Other measures already asked by EiC could be implemented at this occasion such as: a- Identifiable automatic flags for manuscripts that are stalled at some stage of the process—for example, when an Associate Editor has not yet invited or secured referees, when an editor has not acted after a referee report has been received, or when a referee is late with an assignment. b- An automatic system keeping referees informed about the fate of papers they have reviewed.

These matters are urgent, and we are confident that swift action can be taken. We are ready to work together with IMS and the other societies that co-sponsor our journals (Bernoulli Society / IHP), with the publishers, and EJMS to define the necessary policies and implement practical solutions as rapidly as possible. Our common objective is to preserve a publication system that is rigorous and fair to authors, while remaining sustainable for the editors and referees on whom it depends. Nicolas Curien (EiC of Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincaré, Probabilités et Statistiques) Patricia Gonçalves (EiC of Electronic Communications on Probability) Cristina Toninelli (EiC of Electronic Journal of Probability) and endorsed by incoming EiCs Giovanni Peccati and Nikos Zygouras * We provide below a list of improvements to rapidly include in the EJMS system. 1. Establish a clear AI-disclosure policy across all journals. At present, our journal policies do not consistently tell authors what they are required to disclose concerning their use of AI. During the closure, we could update our policies and introduce, at submission, a standardized AI declaration requiring authors to provide a clear and faithful account of their use of AI. 2. Providing more information about authors and their participation in the system is increasingly important information for editorial purposes. We would like a platform gathering information across all probability journals hosted by EJMS and making it easily accessible to the editorial boards. Whenever a new submission is received, we would like this platform to provide editors with easy access to the following information for each author: a- Clear affiliation (e.g. academic/not academic, math institute or not), career stage. b- All articles submitted and/or published by the author in EJMS probability journals over the last few years. This would help us assess the recent pressure they have placed on the editorial system. c- The number of referee reports, quick opinions, and other editorial services provided by the author across EJMS probability journals in recent years, as well as the number of referee requests they have declined. This would help us assess the balance between contribution to and use of the community's editorial resources. d- A flag indicating documented serious publication-ethics concerns, for example plagiarism, failure to disclose AI use when required, or other serious breaches of publication ethics. The goal of these indicators is to make explicit the principle of reciprocity towards the editorial system. We understand that the development of such a platform could take some time, but we insist on its necessity. However, some easier tools can be implemented right away: 1. Introduce and clearly announce the possibility of “Reject with temporary submission ban.” A clearly visible notice at the submission stage should inform authors that this is a possible editorial decision. Making this explicit would provide an important deterrent against the submission of manuscripts that are manifestly unprofessional, unfinished, or insufficiently polished—a phenomenon that, unfortunately, we are encountering with increasing frequency. 2. Introduce consent to AI-assisted pre-screening. This tool could be used or not by the journals, depending on their policy. At the submission stage, authors could be required to agree that their submission may be pre-screened using a privacy-preserving AI tool chosen by the journal. This alone could make the desk-rejection stage considerably faster. 3. Live sessions. This tool could be used or not by the journals, depending on their policy. Authors should agree, as part of the submission process, to be available, if requested by the editors, for a short live video session in which they present and discuss their paper and answer questions about its content.

Dear all, Below is a message (from Nicolas Curien) and some background discussion concerning the temporary closing of submissions for AIHP, EJP, ECP, SPA, and Bernoulli.  Best, Fredrik //// Dear colleagues and friends, The increase of submissions due to AI has put the editorial system under pressure. After discussing with several EiC we decided to momentarily close the submission system on Monday 19th October, for three weeks. Please do not circulate the information before next Monday otherwise we will have a tsunami of submissions this week. But I count on you to relay the information as largely as possible next Monday to make the message percolate among the community. A message will be displayed on the web-page of the journal : "The journal is temporarily pausing submissions until November 9th while the editorial board and publishers develop new editorial policies, guidelines, and practical solutions to handle the substantial increase in submissions. New submissions will not be possible during this period. Comments and proposals for solutions are most welcome." This action concerns AIHP, EJP, ECP, SPA and Bernoulli. The Annals journals did not want to join this action. In the meantime, we will make our best to implement new tools in the EJMS system. A list of ideas is available below in the message that we sent to the IMS/Bernoulli board. If you have further (doable) suggestions, please share with us. Best, Nicolas. Dear publishers, dear Presidents of IMS, Bernoulli and IHP, We, the Editors-in-Chief of probability journals co-sponsored or supported by your societies, are facing serious difficulties. The explosion in submissions, largely driven by the rapid development of AI, has put extreme pressure on our editorial systems, our boards, and ultimately our colleagues. Following extensive discussions, we agree on several points and ask for urgent action: 1. A temporary closure of the submission system of our journals. 2. The development of new guidelines and policies. 3. Improvements to the EJMS software to include new tools that would help us cope with the situation. 1. Why we ask for a temporary closure At the current pace of submissions, we simply do not have enough time to carry out the editorial job properly. The alternative is either to accumulate an enormous backlog or to make increasingly rapid decisions on the basis of incomplete information. Neither is fair to authors, and both risk undermining trust in our journals. Moreover, the current workload has become unsustainable, to the point that some members of our editorial boards have informed us that they are considering stepping down—a risk we cannot afford to take. A short closure (two weeks?) would allow us to implement immediately several concrete measures that could already make the situation substantially better when submissions reopen (see below). A temporary closure would also send a clear and constructive message of hope to the community: our journals are responding actively to the transformation brought about by AI. During the temporary closure, we would like a clear message to appear prominently on each journal website, along the following lines: The journal is temporarily pausing submissions until [date here] while the editorial board and publishers develop new editorial policies, guidelines, and practical solutions to handle the substantial increase in submissions. Comments and proposals for solutions are most welcome. New submissions will not be possible during this period. 2. Improvement of EJMS During the closure of the system, we would like to see urgent actions taken within the IMS/EJMS. Some of these tools are easy to implement within the closing period (e.g. standardized AI disclosure statement, rejection ban, consent by authors to AI assisted prescreening when submitting to journals that decide to adopt this measure…), some others require more profound changes. We provide below a list of suggestions and would be happy to discuss them.

footnote: cf. Leibniz, “De Persona Christi” (Akademie-Ausgabe VI.iv: 2294-2295), Euler, “Défense de la Révélation contre les objections des esprits-forts” (Paris 1805, archive.org, e.g. p.25), Cauchy «Considérations sur les ordres religieux, adressées aux amis des sciences» (Paris 1850, google books, e.g. p.7 ), Riemann’s biography in his Gesammelte Mathematische Werke (Leipzig 1876, archive.org, e.g. pp.525-526), and recall Egorov going to gaol for his Christian faith.

Their Christian faith played a key rôle in the lives and the worldview of Leibniz, Euler, Cauchy, Riemann, Egorov.3 The religious, the philosophical, the historical, the artistic context of Mathematical enquiry has stood at the centre of debate of the Moscow School since the days of its founders – Bugaev, Nekrasov, Egorov, Luzin. In the West I have never heard a similar discussion – until the AI controversy today. Is it too great an exaggeration to say that for some decades the Western institutional ideal of a research mathematician has been disturbingly similar to a fast technically faultless problem-solving bot? Is it not then a welcome development that AI solutions provoke a reflection on the humanity of the mathematician since so many years banned in the West? Mathematics stands at the crux of Man’s existence. It is “knowledge of all that is” (rḫ nt.t nb.t), as Ahmes writes . How can the solution of a few conjectures change that? So, to colleagues who fear lest Pure Maths go the way of chess – no it won’t. It can’t. AI solutions whet my urge to ask. The energy resources of the world do not suffice to sate my curiosity. Everything is there to discover. Parmenides supplies a simple proof. The aim of the ὁδοὶ διζήσιός is ἀγένητον ἐὸν καὶ ἀνώλεθρόν. Ἔν, συνεχές. Parmenidean ἐὸν can’t be maimed by AI. Yes, AI has its dangers. Today, I only ask AI for purely technical help. I discourage my students from doing more. ChatGPT is a nasty interlocutor. I grasp why young men kill themselves talking to AI. I see the risk of the destruction of my human person. On these pages colleagues link one’s AI elation to tenure. Yes, the Western system as I know it has been failing young mathematicians for decades. Since long before AI. May AI be a wake-up call. No, AI solutions are not a revolution in Mathematics — but perhaps forerunners. A revolution in Mathematics comes through conceptual progress with philosophical implications (cf. Lobachevsky’s Geometry or Kolmogorov’s Grundbegriffe born from asking “What is space?” and “What is chance?”). AI developments newly raise the questions “What is proof?” and “What is understanding?”. I expect both Philosophical Logic and Mathematical Logic (οἱ Διόσκουροι) greatly to advance in the coming decade. Philosophical enquiry will translate into mathematical discovery. A golden age of discovery is dawning upon us. During my entire career it has never been so exciting to be a mathematician. Μὴ φοβοῦ, τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον, ὅτι εὐδόκησεν ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν δοῦναι ὑμῖν τὴν βασιλείαν.

Дорогие друзья, осмеливаюсь поделиться маленьким постом об ИИ в математике. Буду глубоко благодарен за самую резкую критику!

С ПРАЗДНИКОМ, ДОРОГИЕ ДРУЗЬЯ!!!  прилагаю книгу о Гесиоде и Платоне – с интересными работами о Тимее.

Мы начинаем  :)

Дорогие друзья, как и всегда, семинар можно смотреть онлайн. Ваши вопросы задавайте, пожалуйста, здесь!