A number problem which has existed since 1955 has been brute forced (a technique whereby every possible combination is attempted, one after the other) by a supercomputer.
So, which "R" are you more filled with? Relief, or Regret?
That pesky problem has evaded the best minds in mathematics for years and you've clubbed it over the head and chucked it on the 'done' pile.
On the other hand, you've solved the unsolvable and opened the eyes of those same mathematicians to the prospect that other unsolvable diophantine equations are probably solvable after all.
This question is similar to the problem of Ethical AI. Just because I can predict which car you drive, how much milk you've drank, or what word you're about to type; should I?
Cindy Rose (CEO, Microsoft UK) has been talking recently to the Big Issue (https://www.bigissue.com/latest/technology/microsofts-cindy-rose-apply-ai-ethically-to-unlock-its-potential-for-good/) about Responsible and Ethical AI and is encouraging companies to take 'technology for good' seriously. There is even a site promoting 'good' projects (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ai/ai-for-good ), a set of principles and guidelines for responsible bots. I wonder whether the Office '97 paperclip (Office Assistant) complies?!
For the time being I'm not too worried. Charles Taylor InsureTech is already well placed to support these concerns. The insurance industry is heavily regulated; we're already used to considering the consequences of our actions for ourselves and on behalf of our customers. But does the rest of the technology industry? Only time will tell.
[The] brute force approach [to number theory]