but what name could possibly be cooler or more metal than Chris Peikert's Theorem

I too use Clément to write all my papers

when we gonna stop with these human-written proofs, we were gifted with bots

Thanks, good nuance. Lately I've been thinking about how I write papers assuming that the reader is going sequentially ("I don't need to re-explain this nuance - I just talked about it a page ago") but I almost never read this way. I think I have room for improvement here.

I didn't mean me, of course. Everything I say is brilliant and beyond reproach.

A good sign for this adversarial reading is if you find yourself reading the paper in a non-linear order. A trustful reading usually proceeds line-by-line, but in a skeptical reading you constantly skip around to the part that you currently find most suspicious.

The alternative is to read with the view that the results could not possibly be correct, and the authors (those fools) could not possibly have proved it, and you will find the inevitable flaw. And then as you read you're slowly, begrudgingly, forced to admit that they were right after all.

In particular, trustful reading leads to the sense that you can verify each individual step of the proof, but you have no idea of the bigger picture, how you might have come up with it yourself, or how to extend the argument.

I think a common newcomer mistake is to read papers automatically trusting all the claims made by the authors, because the authors are smart and the paper was published and so the claims are probably correct. The claims *are* probably correct, but you should set this aside as a reader.