I've seen two mathematicians (Dana Moshkovitz and David Harvey) state that the proofs were greek to them as written but that other models understood the papers just fine and could break it down and explain it to them.

Dana Moshkovitz: "Basically the paper is so horribly written that it’s impossible to read it without AI help. I asked Astra for reasonable completeness and soundness claims of the noise gadget and it gave them by combining claims from all over the paper."

David Harvey: "The bottom line is that I think the claimed result is plausible. I have not actually read the paper. In fact, there are three closely related papers [papers], and I have not read any of them. I tried, but soon gave up. The math(s) dump does not appear to be strong on exposition. Instead, I asked Fable to explain [paper] to me. Fable seems to understand the argument and thinks that it is correct. I expect that thousands of frontier LLM instances around the world have come to the same conclusion over the last two weeks. If not, surely we would have heard by now. At first I did not understand Fable’s explanations. But I asked questions, and then asked more questions, and drilled down towards the core of the problem. Gradually I started to understand parts of the argument. I have seen enough now to arrive at the tentative belief that the main result is possibly correct (notice that I choose my words very carefully), and that the bound O(n(log n) α) has the right shape. I stress that I have not checked the proof in any serious level of detail, and there are many parts that I do not yet understand properly. In the sections below I will try to explain what I have learned so far, and why I lean towards thinking it might be correct."

Without AI help? Impossible. With AI help? Comprehensible.

That is consistent with the assertion that mathematics might outlast human mathematicians.

(Feels related to models evolving forms of human-incomprehensible shorthand when communicating among themselves.)