No, I see this argument repeated all the time in these threads. "It will just give true/false, while humans need intuitive explanations". Why will the AI only give true/false? Where did this assumption come from? The nested citation was about AI that can give humans an explanation. The reply was "but true/false is not enough". It is as if it was a reply to another comment. How is that a great comment?
> The assumption here is that the true/false of the theorem is the important outcome
You're replying to a comment about "clean proofs" and explaining to humans. You talk about true/false anyway. Re-read please.