I believe the objection is because they are constantly negative, even before LLMs were a fraction of its usefulness today.

Every technology has its negative parts, but breathlessly pointing out the negatives gets really old.

The article is very dismissive of recent mathematical proofs. It mixes together ethical problems (plagiarism, "strip mining" proofs) with capability problems (proofs not being novel, overstating capabilities). Again, it's fair to be skeptical of what the companies themselves are saying (and why). But from what I've read, many mathematicians are taking AI quite seriously. I've recently read several thoughtful essays from credible folks who are calling for dramatic changes to the field in response. For example: https://www.daniellitt.com/blog/2026/9/13/a-beginning-for-ma...

The article is also dismissive of the Hugging Face incident and other hacking incidents. This one is trickier, because we are more reliant on what the companies have released to piece together what happened. The METR report is probably the closest thing we have right now. Here again, I think the issue is that a lot of coverage blends the ethical issues (holding AI companies responsible for what their bots do) with capability issues (being skeptical that AI will ever be capable of developing novel and dangerous attacks).