Many papers have errors, yes—but our major results generally hold up, even when the intermediate steps are wrong! This reminds me of a bunch of recent posts on

Many papers have errors, yes—but our major results generally hold up, even when the intermediate steps are wrong! This reminds me of a bunch of recent posts on HN about AI and its "reasoning" process. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44052713 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44052713 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43673463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43673463 An interesting read and take on math papers. [edit] adding another thought Maybe LLMs and their reasoning could be used as a model for how a consensus is reached in a group.