I think this is an emotional moment for a lot of people, and the math community itself isn't of one unified mind on what should happen. Perhaps the latest is the 3SUM/APSP result that came out last week. I'm not sure how carefully many people read that preprint, but the most bizarre part of the episode to me is what the prompt was: there was no prompt to solve 3SUM. The agent was working on something else, and decided to attack 3SUM on its own as a side quest then solved it (see page 63 of the preprint). Its solution purported to resolve 3SUM and APSP simultaneously, via a unifying problem that both reduce to. So then, Anthropic is sitting on the refutation of 2 of the 3 major building blocks of fine-grained complexity. Just sitting on them and not telling the world doesn't seem right. Some mathematicians feel poorly written (by AI) manuscripts should be released as they are, and just let the community digest it. Dan Spielman, who I respect a lot, wrote in mathadjacent.com/p/the-big-r… the exact opposite: AI companies should "find experts who are interested in the problems and the solutions, and to offer them the opportunity to write good solutions", which is exactly what Anthropic did. Again, it's impossible to please everyone when there's no consensus amongst reasonable people. I think we’re in a phase of process experimentation while everyone is digesting the new world we're in.