What I've seen appears to indicate some genuinely new approaches by the AI, rather than putting together existing information. That blog post, for example, quotes some running commentary from a mathematician studying the proof of the theorem that she had been working on for years:

It feels like something written by someone who’s on psychedelics. So much unclear and doesn’t make sense. Lots of name dropping of previous work without discussing why it can be used despite impossibility results

Basically the paper is so horribly written that it’s impossible to read it without AI help

I asked Astra for reasonable completeness and soundness claims of the noise gadget and it gave them by combining claims from all over the paper

They also have direct optimal NP hardness of approximation proofs for the main applications of the UGC (Max Cut and all CSP) that bypass the UGC.

The UGC proof invents a completely new bizarre code with a noise test. It’s some crazy recursive construction.

It’s not the long code, not the short code – some alien craziness

I still think that there maybe is a proof that uses the half space code (which is natural)

The citations are often irrelevant and confusing

A possible future is a math world that’s heavenly if you have vision/creative ideas that AI could help check and implement.

And of course there’s a lot for us to learn from the aliens

Note that this particular proof is correct, according to that same mathematician.

The blog post was written less than a day after the proofs were released, and apparently they're very hard for humans to follow. Now that a month has passed, there are human mathematicians' explanations of how the proofs work up on the internet.

Both can be true at once - it is coming up with original ideas but explaining them poorly. I'm not a mathematician but I find that in my field (software development) the AI is much better at writing code than it is at writing documentation - it will write documentation if you ask it to, but the documentation will be unfocused and difficult to read, with explanations of things that don't matter and garden path sentences. I got this sentence from it recently:

A restart build gives a particle or pair its specs restrain without saying where the anchor recorded for it.

That is actually not gibberish - it's technically correct, but it certainly isn't clear.

You can look at Terence Tao's blog instead if you'd like. Just from the last week or so, there are the following headlines:

• Egoless Mathematics in the AI Era
• Mathematics has changed. Let’s act like it
• The mathematical sciences in an AI-enabled world
• Report of the Summit on Math Research in the Age of AI
• AI, Mathematics, Education, and a public goods problem