This appears to be a very bad faith post that intentionally misrepresents what is being said.

1. pertains to the quantity of output adding stress to review processes; LLMs can feasibly produce a million plausible but incorrect 'proofs' in the time that a human can produce one. We already see this effect in software development, with bug bounty programs shutting down and open-source software rejecting AI contributions or closing altogether because LLMs flood review channels with an amount of spam for which there is no sufficient amount of human bandwidth to handle.

2. is nothing about "following established traditions" but rather the general concept of crediting people for their prior work, unless you think that "not plagiarising" is a trifling established tradition.

3. is more or less accurate to the point they made, but "it has historically been this way" isn't a compelling justification for "it should always be this way and also it's okay if it gets worse"

4. An existing issue being made 100x more common is a point worth bringing attention to even if it already existed, actually

5. said nothing that could possibly be interpreted in the vein of "muddying the field with lots of unknowns" at all. Point 5 was actually about economic incentives and the risk of mathematic research becoming beholden to tech monopolies

▲

Supermancho 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure it's constructive to explain our differences, point by point. eg

> 2. is nothing about "following established traditions"

> undermine the traditional system of attribution

Literally does.

Suffice to say, I find your interpretations to be surprising and disconnected and it has not changed my views.

	▲	applfanboysbgon 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The actual thesis of point 2 is about plagiarism, and the thesis would remain the same if the sentence you quoted were removed completely. Your portrayal of it moves the out-of-context snippet to the forefont of the argument and makes it sound like an issue of "tradition for tradition's sake" or something similarly indefensible, but you refuse to engage with the real argument being made, hence why I suspect you are acting in bad faith. Are you suggesting that not attributing credit to work you've copied from is the way things should be going forward? If you are, then argue that point and make it earnestly. Instead you continue to avoid any substantial discussion of the points raised and only went for a cheap "gotcha".