No offense intended, but this sounds like you're projecting impressions about LLM output for programming. Your words make a lot of sense to me in that context, but not as much here.
I can speak with a reasonable amount of experience here. I absolutely guarantee you that what Gowers sent over was the vast majority of the work involved for a proof. It's also an interesting exercise in general, hence the blog post.
Parsing a proof like this is _much_ easier than creating it.
Parsing code often seems like the opposite in my experience, where it is more difficult than writing it yourself.
I can speak with a reasonable amount of experience here. I absolutely guarantee you that what Gowers sent over was the vast majority of the work involved for a proof. It's also an interesting exercise in general, hence the blog post.
Parsing a proof like this is _much_ easier than creating it.
Parsing code often seems like the opposite in my experience, where it is more difficult than writing it yourself.