There are two issues really - one is a perception that they're not vetting any of this output, just dumping it out on the internet and expecting real mathematicians to actually check it all, so yes if a human was doing the same thing it'd probably still be suspect.

The other is the widely held suspicion that much of the "breakthrough" mathematics here has been stolen from real researchers who've been using chatgpt to develop their theories by talking to it

It is a lot of stuff from an unreliable source that basically vomits out stuff that looks correct but is often not and that is a ton of human work to verify that humans were already in the process of doing.

It is most likely just the stuff humans were close to finishing being scooped up and spit out and not reliably correct.

There's an onus now on those that care about math to check the proofs. If errors are found in one their might be similar errors in another. A serial release would have been cleaner and allowed commentary that might help improve the accuracy or perhaps even the way the model conveyed the data to make it more understandable / digestable.

Openai dug the problems up from somewhere. They could have collaborated with some of the people that defined the problems in the first place. This is just perpetuation of their culture of theft.

Solving a problem has no value if no one understands the solution.