🔥 Featured Questions
48% of Americans hope AI cures cancer or Alzheimer's — but only 15% trust the companies building it. Is that optimism justified?

A nationwide survey by AI company Anthropic (nearly 52,000 U.S. respondents) found real hope alongside real distrust: 48% of Americans hope AI helps cure diseases like cancer or Alzheimer's, and 36% think it'll help people with disabilities. But only 15% trust the AI companies actually building this tech to make good decisions about how it's developed and used, and 64% still fear AI-driven job losses. It's a strange split — people want the outcome but don't trust who's delivering it. It comes as real progress keeps landing: this month Merck and Moderna reported a "clinically meaningful" mRNA cancer vaccine result, and AI-assisted drug discovery tools are increasingly credited with speeding up how new treatments get found. Separately, Pew Research's latest survey found scientists remain America's most trusted profession, with 77% of people trusting science overall — suggesting the distrust is aimed at tech companies specifically, not science itself.

The optimism is justified. Real breakthroughs keep landing — AI is already speeding up drug discovery and helping decode diseases faster than humans could alone. Distrust of the companies is a separate, valid concern about power and profit, but it doesn't mean the underlying science won't deliver.
These aren't actually contradictory. People can want a cure and distrust the company chasing it at the same time — hoping for the outcome while doubting the messenger's motives is a completely rational response, not a paradox that needs resolving.
The optimism is premature. Most "AI will cure cancer" headlines are hype attached to early-stage research — real cures are decades of incremental science away, not a tech product launch. The fact that only 15% trust these companies shows people's gut instinct is closer to the truth than their hope.

Poll as Guest Infographics
From around the web

Similar to hewsay's "48% of Americans hope AI cures cancer or Alzheimer's — but only 15% trust the companies building it. Is that optimism justified?"

Quoted & linked with attribution — not a hewsay user post.
Slovenčina Español (Latinoamérica) Ελληνικά Public Anyone can view, post, and comment to this community 0 0 Home Popular News Explore Best of Reddit Best of Reddit in Portuguese Best of Reddit in German Reddit Rules Privacy Policy User Agr...
reddit.com · Reddit
View original
What cures have doctors found for cancer? Is there a natural cure for cancer that has been found by a medical doctor? Do most doctors want to find the cure for cancer, or are they getting more money by not having a cure? How is cancer treated by a doctor and cured fully? Havin...
quora.com · Quora
View original
AI just disproved an 80-year-old Erdős math conjecture, verified by a Fields Medalist — but OpenAI's last "Erdős breakthrough" claim was debunked. Real progress or hype cycle?

In May 2026, an OpenAI model made an unexpected cross-disciplinary leap: it linked a 1946 Erdős geometry puzzle (how many pairs of points on a plane can sit exactly one unit apart) to a completely unrelated 1964 algebraic number theory result, and used that connection to construct point arrangements beating every approach mathematicians had tried in 80 years — disproving Erdős's conjecture. Nine mathematicians, including Fields Medalist Tim Gowers, reviewed and confirmed the core ideas, calling it "a milestone in AI mathematics." One day later, Google DeepMind's AlphaProof Nexus independently solved nine more open Erdős problems using Lean, a system that checks proofs line by line rather than relying on a human reading them over. The catch: this isn't the first "AI cracks Erdős problems" headline. In October 2025, an earlier OpenAI claim of solving ten Erdős problems was thoroughly debunked by the math community. This time, unlike last time, independent mathematicians verified the work before it was announced.

Handle with skepticism regardless of verification. OpenAI's own track record here includes a debunked claim just seven months earlier, and headline math "breakthroughs" tend to get overstated in the announcement before the dust actually settles.
This is real, verified original discovery. A genuine sign AI can now generate new science, not just recombine what's already known — and the human verification process by Fields Medalist Tim Gowers and others is exactly how it should work.
Math is a uniquely easy domain for this. It's the one field where a computer can formally verify an answer is airtight, like DeepMind's Lean-checked proofs the very next day. That doesn't mean AI can do open-ended science in fields where there's no ground truth to check its work against.

Poll as Guest Infographics
From around the web

Similar to hewsay's "AI just disproved an 80-year-old Erdős math conjecture, verified by a Fields Medalist — but OpenAI's last "Erdős breakthrough" claim was debunked. Real progress or hype cycle?"

Quoted & linked with attribution — not a hewsay user post.
Prime Numbers from previous Prime Numbers : r/math Skip to main contentPrime Numbers from previous Prime Numbers : r/math Open menu Open navigationGo to Reddit Home r/math A chip A close button Log InLog in to Reddit Expand user menu Open settings menu This subreddit is for di...
reddit.com · Reddit
View original
Title: Gerd Faltings wins the 2026 Abel Prize! : r/math # Gerd Faltings wins the 2026 Abel Prize! Skip to main contentGerd Faltings wins the 2026 Abel Prize! Open menu Open navigationGo to Reddit Home. Get App Get the Reddit app Log InLog in to Reddit. Expand user menu Open se...
reddit.com · Reddit
View original