General Discussion

Then there's this; ... "The raw output of ChatGPT’s proof was actually quite poor. So it required an expert to kind of sift through and actually understand what it was trying to say," But now he and Tao have shortened the proof ...

That is, an undergraduate (who apparently didn't even understand the problem: ... "I didn’t know what the problem was—I was just doing Erdős problems as I do sometimes" ...) fed something into a machine, got back something he didn't understand either, and took it to a good mathematician (Tao) --- who was eventully able to treat the output as a suggestion that he could turn into a proof

Note that if I, as a mathematician, produce "raw output" that is "actually quite poor" and a better mathematician eventually can use that suggestion as the basis for a proof, I might get some credit for a useful suggestion but won't be credited with the proof that someone else actually constructed

Bottom line: it's just more AI hype