And if three of their 700 PRs were retracted within a day because of unresolvable bugs? Clearly it's not all verified.
Not to mention the math paper (on HN yesterday) which pointed out that OpenAI might have verified the wrong thing, in their Navier Stokes proof.
It's really not as cut and dried as you (and software/AI folks more generally) think it is.
PS: If a human mathematician had to retract three of their papers a day after posting publicly, they'd lose all credibility and their mathematical career would be all but finished. That social incentive structure is the field's immune system against slop. You're basically asking them to turn off their immune system, and for unclear gains (other than OpenAI's grandstanding).
Not to mention the math paper (on HN yesterday) which pointed out that OpenAI might have verified the wrong thing, in their Navier Stokes proof.
It's really not as cut and dried as you (and software/AI folks more generally) think it is.
PS: If a human mathematician had to retract three of their papers a day after posting publicly, they'd lose all credibility and their mathematical career would be all but finished. That social incentive structure is the field's immune system against slop. You're basically asking them to turn off their immune system, and for unclear gains (other than OpenAI's grandstanding).