Many of the reactions are some version of 'pissed off', which I totally understand. This reaction stands out and resonates with me:

> With these AI-generated papers, I feel that we, as a community, are not applying the same standards of quality and rigour. They can simply release multiple 100+ page papers claiming to have solved this or that problem, often with redundant arguments, unclear logical structure, multiple dead ends, and strange or unsettling terminology — in other words, slop. And we are then expected to go through it, check it, clean it up, simplify it, and explain what is actually going on. This comes at a considerable cost to us in terms of time and effort, while they can simply move on and slop-bulldoze the next conjecture. And, of course, the credit remains theirs. In some sense, we are willingly contributing to our own demise.

I'm not a mathematician, so I didn't even try to read it. But if it is unreadable slop -- then why should we (humans) believe it is correct? And why should professional mathematicians labor through reading it?