The only thing I want to see is the problem statements, solutions, and associated Lean proofs. Anything else is gatekeeping. What a low point for academia.
I actually want to see interesting theories and mathematical ideas come out of proofs more than I want solutions/proofs. After all most maths doesn't have direct practical applications. So although unsolved problems are a good barometer of 'there's still stuff left to understand here', the interesting part about solving them is less knowing what is true and more 'how does this help us understand this field better than we did before?'.
I would still like to know if the Riemann Hypothesis is true though!
A proof would then merely update you from 99.9% to ~100%, which is a smaller update than the example of checking that your keys are indeed in your pocket, where you go from 99% to ~100%.
Or are you perhaps sublimating your own AI anxiety into confrontational assertions that other people who discuss AI aren't as AI-pilled as you?
If the advisory group says something like "AI is bad and nobody should use it in math", I'm pretty confident OpenAI will ignore them.
On N-S I think nobody internally felt confident enough to publicly step up. So Bubeck had to wing it.
It remains to be seen which of the big names will work with whom inside the org