← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.11841 · v1
AI and Mathematical Work on Mastodon: Attention, Topics, and Target-Specific Evaluations
首次提交 2026-11-09 11:54
版本更新 2026-11-09 11:54
雷达观测 2026-11-10 13:18
摘要
How does a mathematical community discuss AI on a federated social platform? We study 24,920 public posts from January--September 2026 by 272 accounts in a fixed roster of 1,002 Mastodon accounts whose profiles indicate mathematical research or study. LLM-assisted extraction identifies 1,191 AI-for-mathematics posts by 101 accounts. Their share of all posts rises from 1.1\% in January to 11.5\% in September, with contributing accounts increasing from 10 to 59. We represent discussion through linked target--aspect--stance triples, separating what is discussed from the property assessed and the author's evaluation. From July to September, capability and usefulness decline as a share of related discussion, while social and institutional concerns increase; changing contributors account for much of the latter shift. Among 38 accounts evaluating both technical quality or utility and communication, credit, or verification procedures, the procedural negative-component fraction is 19.4 percentage points higher on average (95\% account-bootstrap interval: 3.8--35.1). Matching targets within posts gives a similar direction. Repeated extraction varies substantially at the level of individual triples, although replacing the repeated sample preserves the aggregate contrast. Around OpenAI's October 6 mathematics release, related-post share rises from 9.6\% to 13.6\%, and contributing accounts increase from 13 to 28. Post-release discussion includes appreciation of the results' potential mathematical value and applications alongside criticism of promotion centered on result counts, limited methodological disclosure, and verification arrangements.
作者备注：Comments are welcome
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-09 11:54 · 最新观测版本
AI and Mathematical Work on Mastodon: Attention, Topics, and Target-Specific Evaluations
How does a mathematical community discuss AI on a federated social platform? We study 24,920 public posts from January--September 2026 by 272 accounts in a fixed roster of 1,002 Mastodon accounts whose profiles indicate mathematical research or study. LLM-assisted extraction identifies 1,191 AI-for-mathematics posts by 101 accounts. Their share of all posts rises from 1.1\% in January to 11.5\% in September, with contributing accounts increasing from 10 to 59. We represent discussion through linked target--aspect--stance triples, separating what is discussed from the property assessed and the author's evaluation. From July to September, capability and usefulness decline as a share of related discussion, while social and institutional concerns increase; changing contributors account for much of the latter shift. Among 38 accounts evaluating both technical quality or utility and communication, credit, or verification procedures, the procedural negative-component fraction is 19.4 percentage points higher on average (95\% account-bootstrap interval: 3.8--35.1). Matching targets within posts gives a similar direction. Repeated extraction varies substantially at the level of individual triples, although replacing the repeated sample preserves the aggregate contrast. Around OpenAI's October 6 mathematics release, related-post share rises from 9.6\% to 13.6\%, and contributing accounts increase from 13 to 28. Post-release discussion includes appreciation of the results' potential mathematical value and applications alongside criticism of promotion centered on result counts, limited methodological disclosure, and verification arrangements.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗