Sounds entirely reasonable to me. They tried to give some credit. The main contribution is the solution that Claude came up with.
I've adapted a crypto-lib for TLS connections and had a mistake during negotation that truncated some algo-selection value, worked up until the other party started trialling post-quantum algorthims that apparently had algo-id's that collided with the truncated values I was using.
Claude figured out that from the code and trialling TLS handshakes.
Besides, since there was a bounty on finding the curve it seems unlikely that someone would've found out and not shared that? (unless working at a security service that figured out that it was possible to attack?)
That's an argument that must be infuriating to all researchers who ever published a paper on that topic, because most likely Claude was trained with all of them.
When do we call it the right time to stop with the pitchforks, torches and selfish tendencies and accept that many papers published were used to help train a tool that brings discoveries to light for the entirety of humanity to benefit?
Now?
If we got rid of the two significant ways for businesses to raise money that would be bad for everyone.
Sorry what? Nice deflection but knowledge for the greater good of everyone and selfish corporate greed are not in the same camps of end results, the latter being in the same category of the original reply of individuals being selfish for their discoveries.
Unlocking knowledge is just a matter of time and effort, someone will do it. Why does it matter who when we have new technologies that allows enabling everyone in advancing human knowledge?