Going meta a bit: comments so far on this post show diametrically opposing understandings of the paper, which demonstrates just how varied the interpretation of complex text can be.
We hold AI to a pretty high standard of correctness, as we should, but humans are not that reliable on matters of fact, let alone on rigor of reasoning.
We hold AI to a pretty high standard of correctness, as we should, but humans are not that reliable on matters of fact, let alone on rigor of reasoning.