I am not a math nerd.

This stuff is pretty rough.

tl;dr - "While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models."

So some math guys were using chat to work on a math problem. Then the chat team says they solved the problem.

Here's Sam Altman:

When we learned that they had Euler but not Navier-Stokes, we offered to let them go first, to suggest that they should be the ones to get the prize, and optionally for Tristan to be the lead author on a rewrite of the OpenAI proof. We felt it was challenging to offer the same to Levent (an Anthropic employee), who was not willing to talk or coordinate with us anyway. We were open to other solutions.

Here is Levant:

so i’ll now give a bit on my thinking here. i actually woulda been pumped to collaborate on this, there are a lot of people at oai i like (ok, clearly some were indirectly dicks to me because of being part of the whole situation, but im a big boy, i still like them), idgaf about authorship on that step anyway, coulda been me Tristan and every fte at oai for all i care (on that Tristan would disagree:p). but on hearing the loud convo in the hallway, especially the part where a millennium prize was offered if i’d just be removed from the paper, it was kinda clear the die had been cast and things were locked. pretty wacky, unstrategic, and unnecessary, since on my side things were mostly me and claude having a good time yoloing random stuff in the corner rather than anything institutional. i also like the idea of the labs cooperating, and even better on scientific progress. it’s a shame!

And then here is some dude's not very charitable summary:

Wowza.

One does think: how long till the big LLM providers begin mining their user's sessions for profitable ideas...

One might further wonder: why wasn't google doing this to its users emails and search sessions for the last 20 years...oh.