Is a proof that cannot be understood worthless? How would this be framed philosophically?

In fact, the academic system is a kind of worldview created by humans. And as it is shared and the community grows, the problem will gradually become more complex. Because when a discipline develops sufficiently, just as in a mine where rich veins are easy to extract early on but become very hard to extract once much has been dug out... in that sense, as things gradually become more complex, once a certain threshold is reached, won't scholarship surpass the limits of human understanding? Of course, scholarship is entirely for humans, but at some point the system itself may face its limits, and then wouldn't it again reduce the existing normalized minimum within that discipline and establish a new normalization of a new logical system?

In my view, perhaps for very complex work like today, AI will do it, and then there will be work that normalizes and further simplifies the results of that AI. Then, coming back to the human fold, if humans create the initial skeleton, the LLM will learn that again and it will become complex work again, and won't this create a continuing cycle?

I think verification and understanding can be separated. If the proof targets a correctly formalized proposition and passes a reliable proof checker, isn't it valuable? We have obtained knowledge justified as true, but there is simply no new theory that understands that knowledge. As was the case with the Four Color Theorem...

I am always curious what shape the newly compressed new discipline will take. At that time, I hope even people like me, who are intellectually behind, will be able to learn that discipline.

> Is a proof that cannot be understood worthless?

No.

But its worth a lot less than one that can be understood.

They really should be trying to partner with the mathematics community to add maximum value.

Their current approach is reckless and risks doing more harm than good.