I don't think your reading is correct. ML history is related with examples of models using hints from side channels.

If it would be possible to replicate OpenAIs success with a model cut-off earlier than the rumours, and without hinting from informed mathematicians, then we can consider it original. Otherwise it's indefensible.

By Buckmaster's own account, OpenAI (a) wanted him and Alpoge to publish their Euler result first and (b) wanted Buckmaster to author the Navier-Stokes paper, and (c) when he refused both of those, tried to get Alpoge to talk him into it.

Why would OpenAI go burn another $20 million trying to prove they didn't accidentally train on synthetic data derived from Buckmaster's codex sessions? They're desperately trying to give him credit anyway!