I am a mathematician, and I do have the incentive to read the results. Two results in the drop were two major life goals of mine, and all I got was three lousy citations. :) But a third question I've spent a lot of time on is a not-so-hard consequence of one of the lemmas in there. So, yeah, I do have the incentive.

Of course, it's not clear at this point whether reporting such a result even matters, but still. In its own right, it's a very cool result.

Thanks for your perspective, genuinely.

What do you do if those results suck like in the article?

The statements of the lemmas are quite clear. We can write it up if we spot that they have important consequences. The proofs are impenetrable to me, for three reasons: they are very complex, they are badly structured, and they use math unfamiliar to me. So I haven't looked too deeply yet. Maybe when they get their autoformalization stamps of approval.

Of course, everyone is curious about these results, we're mathematicians after all. But by incentives I refer to those things that really sustain the system: obtaining permanent positions, grants for future projects, ideas for PhD theses, etc.

The future is uncertain, so the safe thing to do is write it up if we discover some useful connection between our research and the openai results. Maybe it matters for getting positions grants etc, maybe not. Ideas for new results: the openai drop is full of those.

It seems like you didn't answer the question.

Maybe I misunderstood the question. I'll give it a second go, maybe I'll fail again. Feel free to reformulate.

The term SOTA suggest that you approach this from a perspective other than a pure mathematician's, maybe ML or computational complexity? The openai results help me answer other open questions. It's a yes/no thing: is question answered or not? It's not a question of "okay, but will AI win back the SOTA from me again?"