I’m pretty sure no one (except perhaps Anthropic insiders who had prior access, and probably not even them) has properly digested this paper yet, and some caution is warranted given the notoriety of this problem and the history of claimed solutions that did not stand up to scrutiny. But if it stands up, it’s a really big deal.

Background: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/1973/is-there-a-complex-s...

There's an abstract on page 3. But it's quite ... abstract.

By the end of the first sentence I'm pretty sure it would take me quite some time to understand what it's about (the first sentence of the abstract, not the whole paper)

I'm with you. That is quite a dense paper.

I nearly made it through the first line, OK, sentence of what looks like the Intro, which doesn't bother introducing itself and isn't actually the introduction which occurs later.

I can only describe pages one and two as some sort of foreplay. If you manage to hang on until P108 you can dispense with a safe word in future.

I was more confused by the application of Nakayama’s lemma in the following paragraph, but then it suddenly became clear to me.

basically trivial.