Firstly, Buckmaster hadn't even published the Euler proof yet. This was the other sticking point. Real mathematicians are in the habit of publishing actual understood proofs, not just whatever the AI spits out. They were working on getting the Euler proof in a format that was publishable, so it would actually be useful. This is becoming the more difficult part now, that requires real mathematicians.

The alternative way is the collaborative way. This would entail telling the math community what they were doing, and offering the compute to the experts in this field before they independently launch the model at this problem.

"Hey! We're about to frivolously spend a few million on this, anyone want in?"

They didn't do that, because they wanted to win the pissing contest. The MLB juicing analogy is apt, because those accomplishments are forever tainted.

I'm not part of the anti-AI brigade, but I do see some serious problems here with the timing.

In the scientific world, you'd have to say that it would be very rare for major discoveries to be uncovered within weeks, like what just happened with Euler and Navier-Stokes. The overwhelming reason for this fast pace, is the ongoing AI company one upmanship. The goal is to pander to the market, and has nothing to do with scientific discovery. If OpenAI was interested in scientific discovery, why wouldn't they invite the best mathematicians into the room before they spend millions of dollars of AI inference to try and solve this problem? At the very least, they have to have realised that the scientific community has never in history operated that the speed.

If you have people working on a problem for decades, and there are rumors that they have made progress, what is the motivation to independently launch your millions of dollars of AI inference at that same problem?

To me it's not an issue of stolen work, or whether the solutions differ significantly. The extremely poor decision is knowing that there is a (perhaps even many) team working on this problem, knowing they have been working on it for the best part of a decade, knowing that they had very recently made significant progress, and then still deciding to spend millions of dollars worth of compute to solve the problem without them.

I'd suggest saving some of those tokens for some guidance on ethics.

Poker people would say that with a high card as a Jack, and the way that the bluffing player had represented his hand on prior streets, calling the bluff was a very low percentage poker play. No experienced poker player would have called with a Jack high, even if they thought the other player was bluffing. Their hand was so poor, it was likely to not even beat a bluff.

Poker players have seemed to assume two things:
1) This player is experienced enough to know not to make such a low percentage play.
2) The player really cared enough to play with high poker discipline, given they were clearly outmatched experience wise, and was given this opportunity as a "free roll" in this tournament.

It's amazing to me how smooth brained poker people are, considering they are meant to be playing a game that entails thinking like someone else.

NEBS compliance is still needed for military applications, right?

Can't you just give them something for their anxiety?