I don't understand your comment. At first it seems like you think the LLM should get credit for the work. But then you mock the author for asking about the LLM's mood, which makes me think you believe the LLM is just a tool and not capable of receiving credit (FWIW I would agree.)
You’re conflating two ways of understanding “credit”. One version is what the tool gets, an honest description that the tool solved it. The other is a concept used in the math community to divvy up job opportunities.
There’s not going to be anyone to understand the pursued knowledge when this job gets killed off, which means you’re supporting the reduction of knowledge. That is what’s “unbecoming”.
That knowledge won’t be accesible to people who haven’t trained in understanding mathematics. This is just a fact about the human mind. By killing off this profession you will be making it almost impossible for a large number of people to attain that.
author provided nearly no intellectual input into solving the problem, so they IMO don't deserve credit. and it doesn't make sense to anthropomorphize LLMs and talking about their "mood". these are two unrelated statements.
as to if you want to give the credit to the LLM, or if you believe nobody gets the credit, is another separate question.
If there is consensus on how to attribute credit for LLM-solved human-steered (with no mathematical human input) proofs, I am happy to follow that consensus. Do you have a concrete alternative recommendation? What should I change?
Just saying (as an author) I don't believe that LLMs have conscious experiences, but the word "mood" was a good languagespace anchor for the kind of information I wanted to get out of the LLM at the time.
