This is a feat of superhuman intelligence, completed by a state of the art computer system. It's just done something humans long thought impossible (again), and the future is looking more like the ones science fiction has dreamt of for decades.
I mean, this is possible, but it seems quite unlikely if you take a good impartial look. It's nothing I personally dislike, in fact I enjoy LLMs when they are understood as what they are, which is a tool.
What I do not don are these rose-tinted, thought-terminating glasses which make people assume that this just must be an impenetrable product of superhuman intelligence.
I was responding to a comment from a person claiming this is not an example where the "intention/substance of the work might exist somewhere buried within a wall of impenetrable LLM text". I am saying this is in fact the case, given human experts almost universally agree that the papers are badly written, with inscrutable, hard to follow logic.
I had initially understood you as saying that this inscrutable logic was merely a consequence of superhuman intelligence, which is what I deemed unlikely. I don't see experts agreeing with that position either.
I am not unhappy about this result, but I am somewhat unhappy about it being dumbed down, decontextualised and understood without any nuance.
Sorry you don't like the phrasing.