I'm not being "generically" negative, I'm being very specifically negative.

We have a paper from someone not working in the field, with no affiliation, and with an abstract that claims to "solve the longstanding enigma with groundbreaking clarity", a sentence never before uttered by a human being in flesh and blood, and that feels like it takes 4 (four) citations to justify that lambda calculus is Turing-complete, a fact that's well-known to every undergraduate student.

I'm sorry if this gives reviewer #2 vibes, but this doesn't look right to me and I'm asking if someone with actual expertise in the field can clarify what's happening.

The AI slop statement is harsh. The website looks nice.