Там ИИ-шечка решила, пусть и со скандалом одну из семи задачек тысячелетия с пруфцами

Используют, но не присваивают себе саму теорему

Постоянно пытаются: «В научной литературе зафиксировано не менее 400 доказательств теоремы Пифагора»
© (wikipedia.org) :)

Вот их пейпер с теоремой и пруфами, и да, он об уравнениях Эйлера, но двигались они в сторону уравнений Навье — Стокса. И вообще, деньги они явно и не просят:

I would like to be clear about what I am not claiming. I have not seen OpenAI’s proof. I do not know what their model did, or how. I do not know whether our data was used. I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am stating what I was told, when, and what was proposed to me. I am stating it because the alternative is to let a sequence of announcements say something I know to be false.

If indeed an OpenAI model did close the gap to Navier-Stokes, that is a remarkable thing and it should be said loudly, by them, with the history intact.

Тем не менее, некоторые невероятные совпадения очевидно имеют место:

The route to the Clay problem through a smooth force, options c and d in Fefferman’s statement of the problem, is the route Luis and Diego opened and the one Levent and I had quietly chosen to attack. Almost nobody else I know of was working on it. It is not the direction one arrives at in a few days by giving a model the problem statement. When I heard “forced,” it was a bright red flag.

Ну и вот это, думаю, не нуждается в комментариях:

Sebastien twice asserted that he wanted Levent removed from authorship, and said it would all be simple if only it were not the case that, and it was so annoying that, Levent works at Anthropic.

Способов доказательства у теоремы действительно множество