10,000 AI AGENTS SOLVED A PROBLEM WITHOUT A SINGLE ARGUMENT. THE HUMANS STARTED FIGHTING OVER CREDIT RIGHT AFTER THE ANNOUNCEMENT. First, what happened. OpenAI announced that its agents solved one of the most famous problems in modern mathematics. By its account, it took 88 hours. Around 10,000 agents worked on the problem at the same time. Now, what struck me the most. Sam Altman described at Stanford how they interacted. There was no leader. There were no arguments about who did what. No conflicts and no fight for recognition. Everyone simply moved toward one goal. He himself said it's unlike any organization he can imagine. And here's what came next. As soon as the result was announced, a dispute broke out between people over who deserves the credit. The agents split the problem. The humans split the glory. Meanwhile, mathematicians went through their own journey in five days. First came the reaction that it was fake. Then that their field was over. Then that it shouldn't be done this way. By day five, many said something different. Yes, one kind of their work is gone. But most of them never solved problems at that level. They made sense of knowledge, explained it to people and decided what to work on. There is one more idea from Altman that's easy to miss. He suggests, and says outright that it's pure speculation, that almost every organization in the world is modeled on the military. A pyramid, command, control. Because that was once the only known way to manage a large number of people. And here 10,000 agents did it without any pyramid at all. Now imagine a company where only agents work. Nobody takes offense at feedback. Nobody steals an idea. Nobody fights for the corner office. It sounds perfect. And that's exactly why it's interesting that Altman immediately adds: people will never work like this. Because there is beauty in our imperfection. The arguments, the ambition, the emotion. He wouldn't want a world without them. And I agree with him. Because friction between people isn't only a cost. It's also how we decide what matters to us. When two people argue over credit, they're really arguing about what contribution means to them. A machine doesn't ask that question. It just executes. So it seems to me the main question of the coming years isn't what AI can replace. It's which friction we're willing to keep. Altman says people will always care most about other people. That we don't much care what a machine does for its own purposes. That work has value because a person is behind it. It seems this holds true even when we argue. And maybe it's in those arguments that we remain most ourselves.