From the first example, it seems like this paper is so contrived. They pose a statement (y = x^3 - x^2 - 1 + 1 when x > -1) which is true, then provide incorrect reasoning but swapping the multiplicity of -1 and 1, then ask it to provide a proof. Essentially, they are running an injection attack; they give it 90% correct information, then it expects in good faith that -1 and 1 are not swapped, so it takes it verbatim. I don't see how the fact that ChatGPT can sometimes get this wrong, especially when the user is the bad actor trying to trick the computer and isn't actually trying to find a proof, is at all relevant to the Navier-Stokes solution.

I don't think that's an accurate summary of what this paper or its abstract actually claim.

Damn that was fast, you owe me a few beers.

The association for Human Mathematics (AHM) criticized OpenAI's release of 722 math manuscripts and urged mathematicians "to discontinue their work with OpenAI." And, Terence Tao reposted AHM's statement on his blog.

Okay, but if they write another open letter or give another keynote proclaiming the end of the world then you owe me a beer.

I was pointing out that your original comment (before you edited it to just say "ok") did not properly represent the claims of this paper.

I am not making any claims about mathematicians as a collective group, because mathematicians have many diverse views on AI and can't be lumped together into a single "they" (as your comment seems to imply that they can). In fact, some academic mathematicians even work for the AI companies. Your comment seems to imply that if a group of mathematicians publish some statement, then that statement must speak for all mathematicians, but that's simply not true.