LLMs can often guess the final answer, but the intermediate proof steps are always total bunk.
When doing math you only ever care about the proof, not the answer itself.
Once you have a working proof, no matter how bad, you can work towards making it nicer. It's like refactoring in programming.
If your proof is machine checkable, that's even easier.
What’s funny is that there are total cranks in human form that do the same thing. Lots of unsolicited “proofs” being submitted by “amateur mathematicians” where the content is utter nonsense, but like a monkey with a typewriter, there’s the possibility that they stumble upon an incredible insight.
Yep, I remember a friend saying they did a maths course at university that had the correct answer given for each question - this was so that if you made some silly arithmetic mistake you could go back and fix it and all the marks were for the steps to actually solve the problem.