An interesting split in reactions by people who work in mathematics to the OpenAI release:

1. Reacting from the POV of the individual person: disappointment, disillusionment, and/or grief from those who've worked on some problem for years and now don't have something to work on; it's been a part of their identity. As well as those whose career tracks and plans were thrown in disarray.

I wholeheartedly sympathize with the above.

2. Reacting from the POV of the entirety of mathematics as a field of study/research:

  "If OpenAI wanted to destroy the mathematical community, this would be a great way to go about it."

  "...it will create conflict in the mathematical community;"

  "I feel that solving so many problems in such a short time may damage the math community and profession"

  "They can simply release multiple 100+ page papers claiming to have solved this or that problem, often with redundant arguments, ... — 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 ...And, of course, the credit remains theirs."

This second type of reaction... is confusing. No one is forced to read any of the papers. Ignore them if you want. But also, isn't reading papers a lot of the job?

  "Open problems are a resource that the mathematical community developed over decades or even centuries"

I doubt mathematicians have intentionally not solved problems just so that they can remain unsolved? Build on these advancements (or disprove them - wouldn't that be an amazing result!) and pose new problems?

What if a human dropped all of these without AI? I suspect there wouldn't be the same reaction for some reason.