This seems to be the mathematical equivalent of using AI to submit 200 unverified pull requests to an open source project and then telling the maintainers it’s their job to figure it all out.

The one mathematician saying he’s not going to spend hours of his time to verify if a slop report is true, let alone do it for dozens of reports, reminds me of all those projects making rules that unverified AI pull requests will be trashed.

This is the paradox of AI… generate lots of plausibly good sounding material, but you need a human to spend loads of time validating it. Software is already going through this issue.

But for all the slop and uncertainty, the overarching consensus is that the release contains some genuinely impressive work. While stressing the difficulties assessing the volume of material — and the need to properly verify the results — numerous researchers The Verge spoke to said the work appeared to be of a very high caliber, despite shortcomings in its presentation. In a pre-AI world, they said, many of OpenAI’s results would clearly have warranted publication in top-tier journals and could have been enough to secure an academic career for their authors. A handful were described as being the kind of work that could make a mathematician a serious contender for a Fields Medal, one of the discipline’s highest honors.

While some of it is slop, there appear to be genuine gems in there.

I feel like most of the commentors here didn’t even bother reading the article. It’s insane how so many of the mathematicians cited in the article are excited or anxious about developments, and most of the people in here are just declaring more AI slop.