https://proofsandprompts.com/2026/10/08/100-reactions-to-100...
And then tell me that this has not damaged the mathematics community.
I would urge you to reconsider your stance, and in particular to put deep thought into why you believe OpenAI is not going about this wrong.
Fundamentally the main points being made seem to boil down to this excerpt from Tristan Humbert:
>Open AI claimed a proof of the conjecture in full generality this morning and my first impression was sadness to see my favorite problem get “killed” by AI ; it is definitely easier to ignore a problem when it does not affect you directly. Next, I felt stressed because I am currently applying for postdocs and more of my research plan was now obsolete and I spent the whole morning rewriting everything and sending emails to my advisors in panic. Finally, I felt anger after opening the paper and observing that it was mostly unreadable slop.
They're essentially angry at "They did before i could", and "Now i don't have a job" and "I dislike how it is written".
It just reinforces the "scientific priesthood" theme.
These are people who had their livelihoods and status derived from this thing which is now fundamentally obsolete, and they are scared and upset that they will no longer have those things.
That's fine, its a normal human reaction. God knows i'm not sure i will have a job in 5 years because of AI!
But we should not be taking it with any more seriousness than we would take a ludite gripping about the mechanization of cloth manufacturing.
The truth is, the value produced by their job just fell off a cliff. They need to find something else that provides value to replace it. That's it. Being upset about it isn't going to be productive.
Perhaps the value they can make is to rewrite the AI proofs to a more understandable format. Perhaps it is to go flip burgers at McDonalds. That's up to them, but i would suspect that calling releasing valuable information as "bad for science" is not very value accretive.