>This one was initially intriguing, but as I earlier said, is a well defined and constrained bounded domain. The accusation that hours earlier other human researchers's work may have been used to plagiarize the proof has muddied the waters further.

It's even worse. They claim, and the media repeat, that new math results are product of the models intelligence. But we all know there are elite mathematicians working for these companies (OAI, Anthropic) and basically are they who are coming up with new results, assisted by AI, not the other way. And we still don't know how much of the heavy lifting is done by each part. If the models are PhD smart, shouldn't be able to come up with results with minimal guidance? If they're so innovative why the need of an army of top mathematicians, engineers, physicists, etc. and thousands agents and millions in tokens to do novel work? It's just seems to me that humans are doing (barely, hence the plagiarism) the creative, innovative work and AI agents are just useful to explore a massive space of bullshit hypotheses to find something that finally sticks, after being validated again by an army of human experts. AGI and the near super intelligence? It doesn't track.