Depends. I reckon a proof by an amateur would either be worthless because it demonstrates no understanding whatsoever or significantly better because they actually understand the proof.

LLM produced texts are often in a weird area where the quality of the content and the quality of the writing have very little to do with one another.

I don't think it's true that all amateurs have no understanding whatsoever. Amateurs have proven things before, and they've also wasted mathematicians time with wrong proofs.

I'm not saying none of them have any understanding, I'm saying the ones who understand would write better proofs.

Wouldn’t the expectation for ChatGPT be that it presents a well refined report, rather than hand crafted proof / notes?

Because from what I gather, they basically had to go through the equivalent of a pile of notes to find the crux.

Yeah, I also expect better than amateur-level redaction from a system that OpenAI marketing sells as a team of PhD in your pocket.

My understanding of the world, human nature and human learning?