Is it just me or is this line of thinking fundamentally dishonest? It may be true that the papers are hard to read but the papers have extremely high signal towards the proof.

All of these comments seem to suggest that if papers are not 100% abiding by readable books their standards, they are basically the same as literal noise. This is highly dishonest.

I’m just a dude and even I’m able to understand the paper after using ChatGPT to help me through it.

There's certainly a conceit in saying if the math is not accessible to my community then it doesn't even count as math, and the last few days this has been a common ideological talking point.