Read the piece on gowers.wordpress.com ↗
Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.
Their wordsit still doesn't seem to be the case that LLMs are better than all humans at all aspects of mathematics.
Their wordsVery roughly, LLMs would have the edge when there is more of a probabilistic element to the proof-finding process: they would be good at problems for which the best method is to try a lot of ideas, not necessarily particularly novel, until at some point you get lucky.
Their wordsHumans on the other hand would be better (for the moment) at finding more "surprising" and "conceptual" arguments, where the appropriate method is to dig deeper and deeper into a problem until the solution reveals itself.
Keep reading
The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.