← All topics

research workflow

3 captures, most recent first.

@fabianfranz

— saved image

Fabian Franz @fabianfranz · 1h
Just write up the paper anyway and push it to GitHub.

Use this template for math as software project:

0 - Abstract

1- Problem revisited
2- Background and declared dependencies
3 - Proof in a few steps
4 - The Proof itself from start to finish
5 - The human-readable intuitive blackboard proof (from first principles)
6 - Exported Lemmas (generally useful) + Lessons learned
7 - Future work, new hypothesis and open ideas
8 - Conclusion
9 - Bibliography [every dependency should appear here as a text]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Reply post by Fabian Franz advising to write up AI-assisted math results and push them to GitHub, with a ten-part 'math as software project' paper template. Appears to be a reply in the preceding Leverrier thread.

ai for mathpaper templategithubresearch workflowproofs

@letonyo

— reply from @FJSchreiber — saved image

Anthony Leverrier @letonyo

Is this happening a lot:
you interact with chatGPT to solve an interesting (TCS/math) question; after 50 prompts, you get some midly interesting result (that would have been a good paper not long ago) and a 50-page page written by the AI.
But then, you're too tired (1/2)

7:51 AM · Sep 18, 2026 · 13.5K Views

7 replies · 13 reposts · 92 likes · 25 bookmarks

Relevant · View quotes

Anthony Leverrier @letonyo · 2h
to check it all, and to rewrite it in a clear way. So you just let it there on your computer.

This has happened to me quite a bit, and i guess I'm not the only one.

7 replies · 4 reposts · 64 likes · 3K views

Franz Schreiber @FJSchreiber · 10m
I gues like with all the shiny gadgets of modern society, it requires discipline. (That being said, I can relate)

1 reply · 2 likes · 245 views

Anthony Leverrier @letonyo · 7m
it's just that the effort for having the finished product you can put on the arxiv is vastly larger than the one to get the result together with a full AI-generated paper.
And the current incentives for publishing new results are not that high anymore, unless it's a breakthrough [cut off]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Thread by Anthony Leverrier about getting a mildly interesting TCS/math result and a 50-page AI-written draft from ChatGPT and then lacking the energy to verify and rewrite it for arXiv, with a reply from Franz Schreiber and Leverrier's follow-up about weak incentives for publishing new results.

ai for mathresearch workflowarxivpublishing incentiveschatgpttheoretical computer science

Mariya I. Vasileva @mariyaivasileva

— reply from Vivek Karmarkar (@vivekkmkpinn)

Mariya I. Vasileva @mariyaivasileva For the last several weeks, I've been completely wrecking my sleep schedule spinning up research experiments with Claude. Finally, every research scientist and PhD candidate has something we've always dreamed of — our own minilab of research interns that will test out the viability of various ideas we never had the bandwidth to explore. Even when I'm trying to sleep, I find myself picking up a conversation to ask "just one more" open-ended question, which, without fail, pulls me down a multi-hour rabbit hole. An absolute intellectual rollercoaster. 9:58 AM · Mar 7, 2026 · 21.4K Views 21 replies, 19 reposts, 359 likes, 102 bookmarks Vivek Karmarkar @vivekkmkpinn · 14h I feel you! I'm in the same boat... It's such a real addiction... I find that my project gets 90% done, that's when model performance degrades and the home stretch is usually 1AM-4AM 😂🤣
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

A researcher describes Claude as enabling a "minilab of research interns" for open-ended exploration, with a reply comparing the late-night usage pattern to addiction. Relevant to how researchers experience working with Claude as a collaborator/tool, echoing the "coworker" reframe in Nathan's own notes.

twitterclauderesearch workflowai collaborationproductivity