It doesn't make sense to expect such a positive reaction from the community when OpenAI publishes these papers without proper citations, scoop mathematicians, and copy-paste publicly available preprints. These are points I raised above and you didn't address. It is obvious that the reaction is distrust: OpenAI spends millions in prompting and subsequent self-publicity, but proper citation is too expensive?
> FWIW, in many online platforms, many actual mathematicians who referee papers, have said the quality of the papers are not outstanding, but they are still better than average.
I don't know what "online mathematicians" you're talking about, but I'm a professional one, do reviews and discuss regularly with other mathematicians (some of them of high profile); no one thinks that these AI papers are above average in terms of writing. This is what even in the most well-known online platforms has been repeated over and over. It seems like you're biased on this one.
> FWIW, in many online platforms, many actual mathematicians who referee papers, have said the quality of the papers are not outstanding, but they are still better than average.
I don't know what "online mathematicians" you're talking about, but I'm a professional one, do reviews and discuss regularly with other mathematicians (some of them of high profile); no one thinks that these AI papers are above average in terms of writing. This is what even in the most well-known online platforms has been repeated over and over. It seems like you're biased on this one.