In that context, slop would be Terry publishing those proofs and asking someone else to do that work.

Only human can publish the slop, which mean if Tao release something without reviewing, it will be called slop.

Yes, what I'm saying is some of these proofs may have had essentially zero marginal human effort. Should they not be reviewed at all?

Reviewing to make sure the proof is correct. Even the proof comes with lean, it could still proof the wrong thing.

> put a cap on AI productivity

Oh no, the horror

I think the issue lies partly in not understanding your product yourself, and then handing it off to someone else who has to make sense of it.

The comparison doesn’t work for the music industry, at least. Many hit songs are written and produced on a whim, while people analyze it for years.

Well maybe Tao is wrong and we should instead focus on making LLMs explain their ideas better. It really seems eminently achievable and would be better all round.

I think the problem with those Maths proofs was they were massively rushed and OpenAI just couldn't be bothered to do it properly or actually check them. They were more interested in the PR than in helping advance Mathematics.