Work this abstract almost certainly has no value outside the community that is (was) interested in the result. OpenAI should engage with the community to realize the value (beyond PR).
All of these comments seem to suggest that if papers are not 100% abiding by readable books their standards, they are basically the same as literal noise. This is highly dishonest.
I’m just a dude and even I’m able to understand the paper after using ChatGPT to help me through it.
??? That's literally what everyone does. You are creating a hypothetical that is nonsensical. Here's your hypothetical:
1. Agent gives you 5000 lines of slop
2. You reject it and just do it yourself
This is reality
1. Agent gives you 5000 lines of slop
2. you realise that it has done a lot of research and is mostly in the correct direction and you ask it nicely to refine it
3. verify that you understood it and push it to prod
Are mathematicians babies that they need a completely different approach?
1. the proofs are hard to read
2. but are still sufficiently high enough signal to understand the proof
3. blaming OpenAI for releasing high signal information on important problems is wrong. OpenAI did the right thing here.
4. the mathematicians can take however long they want to digest it and verify it. They have no legal obligation to do it immediately
This is exactly how I'd like society to work. Publish and let information get democratised quickly.
How could you possibly know that? If you don't have the knowledge to understand the paper without using a chatbot, you don't have the knowledge to verify that what the chatbot said is the same thing as what's in the paper.