How does any of this benefit OpenAI? They already got the headlines, it's not like its going to be front page news when the mathematical community actually understands the results that have already been claimed.
The contents are actually extremely valuable, it's better to have them then not, but it still takes nontrivial expert work to sort and parse them.
>I think the argument is that OpenAI should have done the work of cleaning up the proofs in the first place
If this gets 'fixed,' I highly doubt the math community would be any happier.
1. Pick random high quality maths papers that are outside of the training window 2. Convert them into a form which preserves the quality of the results but throws away the quality of the writing. For example, formalise them or keep only a high level summary of the proofs and throw away the introduction/conclusion 3. Generate full maths papers out of these summaries 4. Try to make the output maths papers be as similar as possible to the input papers.
You can see this as similar to training an auto-encoder, and I don't see any real downside to doing this over training on these corrected papers. Yes, the individual results would be less significant but you can't exactly mass produce training data by publishing papers and hoping someone fixes it.