The Brief

Rent control can either be your friend or your enemy.

The laws are often the bane of landlords who’d like to charge more and a potential safety net for tenants who can’t afford steep rent hikes. But why it’s around isn’t necessarily because politicians want to protect the little guy — rent control has historically been used to mitigate another problem.

If you want a breakdown of how rent control may work in your area today, here’s the guide for that. But in this one, we’ll explore more of the backdrop: how high inflation, wartime efforts and a housing crisis birthed different eras of rent control.

The wartime effect

L.A.’s first round of modern rent control came more than 80 years ago — and it was perhaps the strictest we’ve seen.

When World War II began in 1939, industrial employment ballooned. The Great Depression was easing, so workers migrated to Los Angeles in the tens of thousands for employment. But the surge in population, combined with the war effort, created a perfect housing storm that lasted for years.

More people were coming at a time when our housing stock couldn’t keep up. About 15,000 residential projects went unfinished because labor and supplies were diverted to the war, according to research from the UCLA Luskin Center. With demand way up, many people had no choice but to live in severely overcrowded and unsuitable conditions. The situation was so dire when a federal study was conducted that a veteran shared how he was living in a house with 18 other people while trying to turn a chicken coop into a place to stay.

A 1945 poster letting tenants know about their rights under rent control.

(

United States Office of Price Administration

/

Illinois Digital Archives, Illinois State Library, and Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias

)

The ultimate solution would be more housing, but that would take years to improve. In the interim, the federal government deployed a rent freeze (and other price controls) in 1942 to ensure essentials remained affordable. Alisa Belinkoff Katz, lead author of UCLA’s study of rent control in L.A., says this move made rent control part of the war effort and more acceptable to landlords.

“It was considered sort of the patriotic thing to do, at least at first while the war was going on,” she said. “It became something that was widely publicized and that people were engaged in.”

That publicity campaign helped to make tenants aware of their rights. Landlords and renters were also required to sign a property registration form that recorded the rent amount under the freeze. To Katz, the tenants who kept tabs on compliance, along with federal enforcement, is what made the rent freeze effective.

A line of people outside of the rent control office at Broadway in Los Angeles on Nov. 5, 1942.

(

Herald Examiner Collection

/

Los Angeles Public Library

)

Property owners register their rentals at the Broadway rent control office in Los Angeles on Sept. 25, 1942.

(

Herald Examiner Collection

/

Los Angeles Public Library

)

The support of landlords didn’t last long, though. The L.A. County apartment association’s president at the time, David Culver, complained about treatment in a meeting with landlords, and together they vowed to take action. They argued that the rent cap was too low to afford taxes and maintenance, and some threatened to take their rentals off the market.

Once the war ended, rent control became a ticking clock. After a postwar federal housing act went into effect, allowing local governments to lose the rules, the L.A. City Council voted to decontrol. Residential rents went back under the sway of the market.

Property owners cheer as the L.A. city council votes 10 to 4 in favor of rent decontrol on July 2, 1950. More than 2,500 owners and tenants packed the council chamber.

(

Herald Examiner Collection

/

Los Angeles Public Library

)

‘Stagflation’ in the 1970s and Proposition 13

Decades later, L.A. was in a different predicament.

An oil crisis was going on, aiding a surge in inflation while economic growth was at a snail’s pace. This is when the term “stagflation” was coined (a portmanteau of stagnation and inflation). Among a number of other things that became more expensive, L.A. home prices were skyrocketing along with owners’ property tax bills.

Landlords again organized around this issue. Howard Jarvis, then-executive director of the L.A. County apartment association, went down in history as the champion of 1978’s Proposition 13 — a measure that aimed to cap property tax rates. But in order for it to pass, he knew that the state’s renters — which made up 45% of households, according to Katz’s research — needed to be convinced to vote for the proposition.

Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann, co-sponsor of the measure, celebrating after Proposition 13 was declared a winner on June 6, 1978.

(

Ken Papaleo

/

Herald Examiner Collection/Los Angeles Public Library

)

Landlords got involved to persuade their tenants. They argued that getting their tax bills reduced would trickle down to their tenants, too. Some even offered rent rebates if it was successful. But after Proposition 13 prevailed at the polls, the rose-colored glasses fell off. Despite what they’d said previously, many owners continued to raise their rents — some by more than 20% that same year.

“It should be an incentive to keep rents low, one would think,” Katz said. “But it hasn't worked out that way because property values continue to rise all over the city. [It helps landlords] because their taxes aren’t going up. So if their taxes are stable and their rents are allowed to increase all the time, then of course it helps them.”

In effect, the law was a type of rent control but for landlords, because it lowered their property taxes and limited increases.

Renters feeling the pinch

Demand for tenant protections was high in this decade, especially in middle-class communities. Renters had few rights and people were feeling the pinch.

“Our phone started ringing off the hooks,” said Larry Gross, executive director of the Coalition for Economic Survival. “It appeared that the speculators discovered Los Angeles. They were buying up rental units throughout the area, raising rent, putting a fresh coat of paint on it, some minor repairs, and then selling it again."

Gross was one of the key people leading the fight for rent control and helped organize tenant unions. He says some apartment buildings were getting flipped four to five times a year. And after Proposition 13, he says the “lid blew off” with rent.

“It was the first of many broken promises that landlords provided to their tenants.”

Renters rallied, urging L.A. leaders to take action. The city council members who represented white, middle-class districts supported the measures, but the ones leading Black and Latino districts did not. Back then, rising rent was viewed as a middle-class problem, and community leaders in lower-income districts worried that rent control would drive away investment in their communities.

Still, the council got enough support to roll back and temporarily freeze rents. Mayor Tom Bradley claimed it was a necessary step to halt “outrageous rent increases.”

The freeze gave the council time to draft a long-term response, which is where the Rent Stabilization Ordinance in place today came from. With this law, landlords can only increase rent in certain properties (built on or before Oct. 1, 1978) generally between 3% and 8%, based on inflation. (There’s a rent freeze on these properties currently because of COVID-19.)

Where we are now

Since the '70s, a lot has changed. Rent control has grown to multiple cities, but so have the legal battles surrounding it.

“It's literally been somewhat of a cat-and-mouse game with landlords,” Gross said. “Because landlords will find loopholes in the law and then use that to evict tenants or increase rent. And then we'd identify those loopholes and we get the city council to close them.”

Property owners looked to change these rules, too, and they got key laws passed from higher up.

New rent laws

1985: The Ellis Act, a California law that allows landlords to evict residential tenants in order to leave the rental business, passes. A landlord filed a lawsuit against Santa Monica, which instituted rent control six years earlier, for refusing to let him demolish his rental property, claiming it was in bad repair. He lost the case when it reached the California Supreme Court, but shortly after the state legislature passed the Ellis Act.

1995: The landlords’ grand slam, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, passes. This was the state legislature’s response to landlords' building frustration with rent control laws, which were more regulated in some cities.

West Hollywood and Santa Monica, had the strict “vacancy control” rule. Under that provision, owners couldn’t raise rents to market rates between tenants, but small increases were allowed during tenancy. The act made that provision illegal statewide.

“It literally puts a bullseye target on the back of particularly low rent, long-term [rentals],” Gross said on the removal of vacancy control. “If they get those tenants out by any means, they can jack up rents to whatever they want.”

The act also prohibited rent control on residential properties built after Feb. 1, 1995, excluded single-family homes and condos, and generally tied city leaders' hands.

“It froze existing local rent control laws,” Katz said. “It had a huge impact because it prohibited what local governments were able to do to protect renters in their jurisdictions.”

2019: The Tenant Protection Act created a statewide rent increase cap. This cap is adjusted yearly based on inflation. It’s intended to prevent very large increases. And, coming soon, California will be voting on rent control in 2024 (for a third time).

Navigating rent control

It can be tough to easily understand how, when, and where rent control affects you. Everything can change depending on what city you’re in, your building type and when it was built.

Some basics you should be aware of are the main types of rent control:

• Rent freeze (rents are not allowed to rise at all in a given period).
• Vacancy control (rent can’t rise to market rates between tenants, but smaller increases are allowed during tenancy — this is illegal in California).
• Vacancy decontrol (rents can rise to market rates between tenants, and increases are allowed during tenancy — the standard in the state now).

Another way that rent control can change is with how much of the consumer price index, which measures inflation, gets factored in.

For example, the city of L.A. typically lets rent controlled properties increase between 3% and 8% a year, depending on the full rate of inflation. But Katz says that other cities have used a lower percentage of CPI. And the city of L.A. has a freeze on increases in rent controlled buildings until February 2024.

Cities with floors for increases, like L.A., can wind up with a problematic deal for renters and a better one for landlords if rents rise above CPI.

“Several times in the last few years, CPI has actually risen less than 3%, but landlords were allowed to raise the rents by 3%. So that's another question, whether that should be adjusted," Katz said.

Figure out where you stand

Rent control is a tangled web of seemingly boring rules, but it does have real effects. To supporters of the protections, the aim is about keeping things affordable and fair.

“It helps to give some security to tenants in a sense that it extends the protections that homeowners have,” Gross said. “What rent control does is level the playing field.”

If you're a renter and would like to know more about where your home stands with rent control, check out my colleague David Wagner’s cheat sheet to rent hike. If you’re in the city of L.A., you can also put your address into ZIMAS and check the housing tab to see what laws apply.

A federal judge has now granted Paramount’s settlement agreement with 12 states that sued over the company’s takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, allowing the companies to soon close their $81 billion mega merger.

In a Wednesday order, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín ruled that the proposed consent decree was a “fair, reasonable, and good faith approach to address the competitive harms” alleged by the states’ lawsuit. Paramount previously called the antitrust challenge the last hurdle ahead of closing its Warner merger, and signaled that it aims to close its Warner acquisition as soon as early October.

Shortly after Martínez-Olguín’s ruling on Wednesday afternoon, the company announced that Ynon Kreiz — current chief executive at toy giant Mattel — will join Paramount on Oct. 5 and serve as co-CEO alongside David Ellison of the combined company.

A Paramount-Warner marriage will bring together two of Hollywood’s last five legacy studios. HBO Max, a library full of titles including “Harry Potter” and cable networks such as CNN will also find themselves under the same roof with CBS, the likes of the “Top Gun” franchise and the Paramount+ streaming service.

Top prosecutors from 12 states — led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta — sued in July with an initial goal of blocking the merger altogether. They alleged a Paramount-Warner combo would “extinguish competition” and lead to fewer choices for consumers, particularly movie theatergoers and cable customers.

Last week, the states agreed to settle these claims through new commitments from Paramount, including pledges to increase film production in the U.S. over the next five years, commit millions of dollars to a fund aimed at supporting workers displaced by the merger and establish new editorial monitoring of CNN and CBS.

When announcing the deal on Sept. 21, Bonta said the settlement was about “protecting people’s careers, the lives they’ve built here in California, the livelihoods their families rely on,” while maintaining it was not a vote of support for the merger.

Many critics of the tie-up, however, quickly decried the deal as capitulating to corporate pressure and said the proposed terms were too weak. Martínez-Olguín didn’t greenlight the terms right away — maintaining at a hearing on Thursday that the court isn’t merely a “rubber stamp” on a settlement of this kind and that she, like many others, still had questions.

The judge granted outside critics of the settlement — including members of the Block The Merger coalition and the League of United Latin American Citizens — a brief window to share their opposition with the court through amicus briefs. She also instructed Paramount and the settling states to respond to a letter from Democratic Sen. Cory Booker, who called for a more thorough review of the deal.

By Wednesday’s order, however, she concluded that the hopes for settlement terms to go further “do not rise to the level of legal violations upon which the Court can reject the parties’ negotiated resolution.”

The Block the Merger coalition on Wednesday maintained the settlement was a “toothless” deal.

“Allowing the Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery merger to move forward with no meaningful structural remedies will cost jobs, mute creativity, weaken independent journalism, and damage our First Amendment rights,” Block the Merger said in a statement. But, the coalition added, “if there is one discernible benefit to the approval of this corporate takeover, it’s that people are now wide awake and paying attention –- and their anger is not going to fade away.”

The Writers Guild of America, which had filed its own suit shortly after the states in July, also reached a settlement agreement with Paramount last week — concluding that it couldn’t continue its legal fight alone.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Inglewood is staring down the barrel of a $30.8 million budget deficit next year, the city’s largest in at least two decades, but officials said locals don’t need to be worried. 

Inglewood’s budget ballooned after SoFi Stadium opened in 2020. City officials roughly doubled their spending from the general fund — the pot of money that pays for basic services from police to parks. 

Revenue also boomed in the first few years after the stadium’s opening, but since then hasn’t quite kept up with what’s been spent. 

City officials downplayed the projected deficit last week, saying in reports and presentations that reserves of more than $150 million will cover the gap this year and that they expect increased tax and other revenues to help take care of the problem in the future.  Mayor James Butts said locals have no reason to worry, and that the city’s reserves have enabled officials to be ambitious in their planning. 

Whether they have to dip into those savings at all depends on how locals vote for a ballot measure on Nov. 3. Officials predict Measure AT could wipe out the deficit entirely by bringing in as much as $45 million to $50 million extra in taxes on tickets to major events.

But_, if Inglewood continues to spend more than it takes in over the coming years and pulls too much out of its reserves, city officials could be pushed to lay off staff and cut funding for services, as they did during a fiscal crisis 15 years ago.

The City Council approved the budget proposal in a 4-0 vote at its Tuesday meeting. Councilmember Eloy Morales Jr. was absent.

Here’s a breakdown of Inglewood’s budget

Inglewood’s annual general fund revenue has grown by about $100 million over the last 10 years, driven in large part by increased property taxes and admissions tax.

But that growth has plateaued over the last five years, while expenditures continued to grow. The city plans to spend $279 million out of its general fund this year, more than double its annual spending prior to 2020.

(

The LA Local

)

The city’s total budget is $675 million. It includes the general fund as well as special funds that pay for things like major construction projects and affordable housing.

Police take the largest bite out of Inglewood’s general fund, followed by the public works and parks departments.

Outside the general fund, the city has also budgeted $239 million for capital projects.

(

The LA Local

)

Some of Inglewood’s largest sources of general fund revenue are property tax, sales tax and admissions tax. 

Property tax revenue has grown by leaps and bounds over the last five years, according to budget documents, but admissions tax and sales tax haven’t matched the growth.

(

The LA Local

)

Officials hope city reserves and a ballot measure will fill the deficit

Inglewood has had budget issues before. The deficit approached $18 million in 2010, just before Mayor James Butts was elected, while reserves fell to around $11 million.

This time around, officials say Inglewood has over $150 million in reserves. 

Butts said those reserves have allowed the city to take an aggressive approach to improving streets, traffic lights and other city infrastructure.

“We put the money there because we want the city to be rehabilitated,” Butts said.

Pulling from reserves, though, isn’t something a city can do indefinitely. City Manager Louis Atwell wrote in a budget report that staff expect tax revenue to keep increasing and new developments to give the city an additional boost. With staff keeping an eye on operating costs, Atwell wrote, those revenues would narrow the city’s budget gap down the line. 

This year’s election could also come into play. The two city ballot measures voters will see — AT and BB — are the product of a larger battle between the city and its stadiums over billboard advertisements and the development deal that brought SoFi Stadium to Inglewood.

Either measure could have a substantial effect on the city’s books. 

Inglewood currently pulls in a 10% tax on SoFi Stadium tickets, but with an annual ceiling on how much the city can get. Measure AT, backed by billboard company WOW Media, would remove the cap and add a new 2.5% tax for the Intuit Dome.

Officials estimated it would bring in between $45 million and $50 million extra annually, more than enough to cover the city’s current deficit. Atwell cautioned, though, that the figures aren’t guaranteed and could depend on economic conditions, the timing of the measure’s roll-out and other factors. 

On the flip side, officials said Measure BB could curtail billboard fees and ratchet the deficit up to almost $39 million. 

The initiative would ban most commercial advertising on the large video billboards that have cropped up along the city’s main roads. Measure BB would cut off a revenue stream that, according to past budget documents, has brought the city between $3 million and $7.5 million. 

City officials itemized how much Inglewood made from billboards in each of the last 10 years, but did not do so in this year’s budget. 

The ballot measures are just a few items on a packed Inglewood ballot that includes elections for mayor, two city council members and three Board of Education trustees. 

International politics moved front and center in the Los Angeles mayor’s race Tuesday night, with the candidates offering differing views on how to describe what’s happening in Gaza.

Incumbent Mayor Karen Bass and challenger City Councilmember Nithya Raman answered questions separately at a forum sponsored by the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles at the Skirball Cultural Center in the Sepulveda Pass. The candidates were interviewed back-to-back on stage by moderator Alex Cohen.

The forum was designed to address the concerns of Jewish Angelenos.

Raman was asked about her use of the term “genocide” and whether it is appropriate to describe Israel’s attacks on Gaza.

L.A. City Councilmember Nithya Raman, right, on stage with moderator Alex Cohen at the Skirball Cultural Center during a mayoral forum on Tuesday, September 29, 2026.

(

Jeff Rowe

)

“I used it because other experts have used it to describe what’s happening,” she said. “And I used it because I felt compelled to speak out about issues that we saw, the images that we saw, the targeting of hospitals, the deaths of children.”

Bass had a different response from her opponent when asked whether she believes the term applies in Gaza.

“When I think of foreign affairs, especially conflicts, my focus is on how they impact the city of L.A. — no, I don’t,” Bass responded.

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass answers questions at a mayoral candidates forum held at the Skirball Cultural Center.

The Gaza Health Ministry estimates 74,000 Palestinians have died in the war, including many children and noncombatants.

The war started on October 7, 2023, when Hamas-led militants launched a surprise attack on Israel, killing around 1,200 people and kidnapping 251.

Genocide is an international crime defined by the United Nations as any act committed with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

The U.S. government and Israel vehemently deny genocide is going on in Gaza. Many other countries and human rights organizations disagree, saying it is genocide.

Candidates differ on Israel boycott

The two also split on the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel.

Raman called it “a legitimate form of peaceful protest” against Israel over its treatment of the Palestinians, prompting loud boos from some in the crowd.

“I support people’s right to protest,” she said. “And I will fight for that right even when I don’t agree with protesters, or when I agree with protesters.”

Raman is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, which supports the boycott and divestment of Israel.

Bass said she would oppose any effort to enact sanctions against Israel.

Cohen also asked Raman about her appearance with Hasan Piker, a left-wing Twitch streamer and outspoken critic of Israel.

Raman said she disagreed with some of Piker’s views, saying it’s important for elected officials “to go speak to them even when you disagree.”

Raman said she has been an outspoken critic of antisemitism and was the first L.A. elected official to denounce the 2023 attack on Israel.

National polls on Gaza

The divergence in views between Bass and Raman represents a larger shift in the Democratic Party over Israel.

A new AP-NORC poll found erosion of support for the longtime U.S. ally, with rising opposition from Democrats.

About one-third of U.S. adults — including roughly half of Democrats — believe that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians during the war in Gaza, according to The Associated Press. About 2 in 10 Americans say Israel has not, and the rest, about half, don’t know enough to say.

A similar share, 30%, of Jewish adults say Israel has committed genocide, although about half, 49%, say it has not.

“40 hours, $2M+ AI credits, solve an open problem.”

So read the splashy announcement for the “Mathathon” at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. Dozens of teams would work to solve vexing math problems with the help of artificial intelligence as part of “the first hackathon ever devoted to research level mathematics,” according to the early September post. AI juggernauts Anthropic and OpenAI were set to sponsor the two-day competition.

The backlash came swiftly. Critics objected not only to using AI to tackle open problems, but also to the involvement of AI companies whose models and research practices they have criticized.

Within days, current and former Caltech mathematicians published an open letter calling on the undergraduate organizers to suspend the event. The Mathathon, they argued, would only fuel the creation of “slop mathematics” and serve as public relations for the companies.

Instead of canceling the event, Caltech student organizers responded as any mathematician would — they tried to solve the problem.

The undergraduates redesigned the competition. Instead of trying to solve open mathematical problems, teams will now aim to develop alternative proofs for existing, yet unsatisfying solutions. The November event will also no longer be sponsored by the companies that develop proprietary AI models.

“We came to the decision that we want to put up an event that unites the math community, rather than divides it,” Brian Zhao, one of the Mathathon organizers and a junior studying applied mathematics at Caltech, told EdSource.

The controversy over the Mathathon event laid bare the growing tensions unfolding in the mathematics community over what role AI should play in advancing the field.

AI has already helped to solve elusive math problems. OpenAI announced this month that it used an internal AI model “significantly more capable” than the latest publicly available models to solve one of the remaining six Millennium Prize Problems. But mathematicians have warned about AI’s negative impact on mathematics students, and criticized these companies’ approach to solving high-profile problems.

“To put it bluntly, AI companies are engaging in research misconduct,” wrote the authors of the open letter, which gained the signatures of 2,038 academics as of this week.

‘That’s not the culture of mathematics’

Earlier this summer, Zhao and his roommate came up with their idea of a fun weekend: lock themselves in a basement and try to solve math problems for 40 hours straight. He was inspired by hackathon-style competitions in which programmers and designers compete to build hardware or software under deadline.

The idea of using AI to try to solve open math problems was two-fold. With mathematics undergoing one of the biggest changes in decades because of AI, the Caltech undergrads wanted to organize an event to experiment with AI and better understand how the field may evolve by the time they start graduate school.

Also, the students hoped that advertising the event with flashy statements — like suggesting teams would have access to $2 million in AI credits — would attract high-profile professors as judges and big lab sponsors.

“What is the role of a mathematician when AI can solve conjectures faster?” Mathathon organizers initially asked on the event’s website.

The AI-infused premise of Mathathon drew the ire of current and former Caltech mathematicians.

“I found it pretty outrageous, taking $2 million worth of sponsorships from OpenAI and Anthropic (and) partnering with these companies that have been, in my opinion, and many other mathematicians’ opinion, very disrespectful to our field,” said Yujin Kim, a postdoctoral fellow in Princeton University’s math department.

Kim had been critical of OpenAI’s approach to solving elusive mathematics problems in viral social media videos. The companies’ sponsorship of the event “felt like aligning with the empire,” Kim said.

“I can’t imagine [the Mathathon] would go any way other than just essentially button pressing and prompting,” Kim said. “That’s not the culture of mathematics. That’s not how we operate.”

After the backlash, OpenAI pulled its support from the event.

“We recognize that the rapid progress of AI in mathematics is disruptive,” Dan Roberts, OpenAI’s research lead, said in a social media post after the open letter was published. A spokesperson for Anthropic declined to comment.

The updated Mathathon competition will allow participants to use AI, but highly encourage them to use open-source tools that can be modified by the public instead of proprietary models run by private entities like OpenAI.

“We are proud of all of our students for the passion, drive, and maturity they have shown throughout this development,” Caltech spokesperson Emily Velasco said in a statement. “The spirit of open inquiry is central to the scientific process, and we hope to see a continued exchange of ideas as the math community charts its course forward.”

Zhao said he and his fellow organizers are determined to move forward with hosting the event. He said organizers hope the Mathathon will allow students to discover ways to use the technology responsibly, and build a bridge between AI developers and the math community.

AI can act like a shortcut to solving math problems

AI has conjured much debate in the math community, some of which has been overdue, said Dimitri Shlyakhtenko, a UCLA math professor who has followed Mathathon developments but did not sign the open letter.

From the outside, it may look like AI is upending the field by solving high-profile problems that have stumped mathematicians for decades. But the reality is more nuanced, Shlyakhtenko said.

“It is very rare that some result in mathematics is obtained out of nothing,” he said. “It usually builds on a mountain of other works that happen, and usually there’s a community of people that care about a particular set of problems.”

Mathematics problems aren’t about the destination of finding a solution, he said. Rather, mathematicians develop new techniques and understandings along the journey to solve a problem. He likened it to hiking to a waterfall. The end goal is to see the waterfall, but the things you discover along the journey are also quite interesting and of value.

With AI, he said that “what we’re seeing right now is that it is sometimes possible to take a kind of a direct shortcut.”

Some mathematicians worry that using AI to solve problems robs training opportunities from younger mathematicians.

Training problems provide opportunities for graduate students to learn skills and approaches to mathematics, but “if those just get solved, then the motivation to do it is kind of gone, right?” Shlyakhtenko said.

Over the past several months, as the Mathathon drama unfolded, Zhao said he has learned two important lessons: Be ambitious and be humble.

Maintaining the lofty goal of the event — of trying to help unravel the thorny debate of AI’s role in mathematics — has helped the team persist in the face of challenges, Zhao said. He added that it also developed the event into something more than just a fun, competitive weekend. The conversations with mathematicians around the world about the event have also taught him to be wary of flashy statements.

“If we just present ourselves honestly as undergrads who are curious about AI, we actually attract more sympathy,” Zhao said. “We actually attract more mathematicians who are willing to help us.”