OpenAI's latest solutions include the alleged resolution of an old open problem in set theory, namely, whether the partition principle implies the axiom of choice. Asaf is an expert on the topic. Here is what he says about the quality of the write up: "No, if this was an academic paper submitted to a journal, it should be issued a desk rejection for the quality. The onus is always on the author to conform and adhere to the communications level. Much like a paper written in Swedish would likely be rejected outright from the Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, because the onus is on the authors to make it accessible for the readers. And therein lies the rub. OpenAI drops some hundreds of "solutions", incomprehensibly written "solutions", and we are all expected to jump on them and what? Appreciate their contributions? Why? I am trying to finish several papers, I am supervising a number of Ph.D. students, and I have a lot of active research of my own to do. When am I supposed to sift through a badly written paper? Why should I bother, when they don't bother to communicate better?"