The amount of money they're lately ploughing into proving math theorems is inconsistent with how societies and markets have priced pure mathematics. The entire US federal budget for math research is something like $100M annually. A single college football coach can already earn 10 percent of that.

Pretty much the only enterprise that historically pays some mathematicians handsomely is quant finance, but those people are actually compensated not for proving theorems but rather for statistical modeling and programming skills. And even that industry is so technologically driven these days that pure research mathematicians no longer hold a clear edge over strong programmers with undergrad level probability and statistics at their fingertips.

Math is one of the most verifiable domains, esp thanks to LEAN, which also build coding skills.

The $$$ they're pouring isn't just for marketing. Think of these papers/results more as "useful side effects" from large-scale RL rollouts and post-training. Every token being generated contributes to post-training in some way.

There isn't a hard boundary between "training" or "inference", modern post-training is arguably inference-bound :)

As long as they continue making headlines they will continue spending. This is just marketing at this point.

  Don't hire a straight-A student, unless it's to take exams; or a professor, unless it's to write papers.
 -- Nassim Taleb