I am wondering how such an expense can be justified.
It's an honest question: I find all of this very exciting and brilliant, however having written grant proposals myself, I am wondering how could they 'sell' factoring larger and larger numbers as worth funding.
BTW, why shouldn't everyone switch to RSA-16384? According to https://wiki.gnupg.org/LargeKeys "elder versions supported creating of keys up to 16 KiB." When it was possible to create 16384 long keys, it must still be possible to use them with new versions of GnuPG, right? And https://www.keylength.com/en/compare/ tells me that 16384 bits are way better than 4096 bits. According to "Lenstra Updated" your data is protected until the year 2153 with 16384 bit keys and until the year 2060 with 4096 bit keys.
There are a very few justifications:
* They get new bounds on factorization performance, which might be important to keep tabs on over time, in case no one else does it, and suddenly we find all our primes factored
* For some reason, INRIA really really hates unfactorized primes
I agree with you that, unless their upcoming research paper introduces new information/experimental procedure, it was a waste of money.