Sorry but you're just wrong. There are issues but the paper is written well enough. The content (whether this is really a novel enough idea) is debateable because anyone could have told you that LLMs aren't going to develop the halting algorithm.
Have you actually read the paper/know how a ML paper should be written?
Here are some of the issues:
- section 1.4.3: Can you explain how societal consequences of LLM hallucinations are in any way relevant for a paper that claims in the abstract to use mathematical theories ("computational theory", although that is an error too, they probably mean computability theory)?
At best, such a section should be in the appendix, if not a separate paper.
- section 1.2.2: What is with the strange subsections 1.2.2.1, 1.2.2.2 that they use for enumeration?
- basic LaTeX errors, e.g. page 19, at L=, spacing is all messed up, authors confuse using "<" with "\langle", EFC.
So no, I'm afraid you are wrong. The paper violates many of the unspoken rules of how a paper should be written (which can be learned by reading a lot of ML papers, which I guess the authors haven't done) and based on this alone, as it is, wouldn't make it into a mediocre conference, let alone the ICML, ICLR, NeurIPS.
