In my view, the right response by the mathematical community to OpenAI’s papers is to say: “We’re not accepting these papers as finished work. It’s not our job to sit down and read your model-generated proofs. It is your job to present your work through presentations and convince people of the correctness of your work. It’s always the case that whoever makes a claim needs to provide sufficient explanation and evidence to make independent verification feasible. Until that moment, you just have a claim.” There’s a difference between a proof being mathematically correct and a proof being accepted as correct by the mathematical community. Mathematical truth doesn't depend on consensus, but scientific recognition requires scrutiny, communication, and reproducibility. They're still the arbiters of whether anyone's claims, including OpenAI's, are accepted as valid, and they should leverage that to the maximum extent possible.