Different people have different feeling and motivation and reasons for doing things. No doubt there are people thinking like you, but it's to early to tell how it will be for the majority.

> People still play chess and go and StarCraft

Because most people still find them enjoyable. You can't say those are less enjoyable than math. There is no universal scale for enjoyment.

> kind of like you might eat today even though you already ate yesterday

You'd die if you stop eating after yesterday's meals. That's survival.

No, people enjoy methematics for the inner journey and for the depth it offers that is orthogonal to everythibg in existance. Learning math is awesome, furthering the field is just paying your dues

Some people enjoy rewatching or rereading books and others dont. Careers change and maybe we need a different type of mathematicians that does enjoy this work more than historical work?

> is probably more like seeing the ending to a mystery novel

lots of people enjoy knowing the end of the story as they start a book, and it does not prevent them from enjoying the book in the slightest.

Something that always comes as a great surprise to those who don't.

> is probably more like seeing the ending to a mystery novel

So math should switch to a Columbo methodology?

some people eat the same bland things every day and others spend a considerable amount of time learning and preparing new recipes.

The funny thing about people comparing mathematical research in the days of LLMs to playing chess in the days of Stockfish is that it identifies the competitive nature, and hence status seeking attitude, of the mathematical research community. Chess is, of course, a competitive game with a winner and a loser. You "win" mathematical research by solving a longstanding unsolved problem.

There is this idea of advancing human knowledge and adding to the record of what people know in mathematical research that breaks the analogy down, somewhat. But most people aren't Perelman. They would happily take the million dollar prize. And it is out of the question to do anything other than put your name on the published paper.

This comment reminds me of the "run for fun" guy in Back to the Future Part III.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouCVJIpSmEE

(This isn't to say I disagree with you.)

Pro tip: life is pointless. So the machines are better at thinking about certain classes of things. So what? Either you enjoy thinking or you don't. Deciding whether you enjoy it or not based on a global scorecard is silly. Surely there are aliens out there somewhere that already figured out any given problem. Does that make finding the solution yourself any less satisfying?

I think what people actually want when they say this is to be the hero. They want the admiration. Which is fine, but at least he honest.

I think the whole point is that we are no longer at the top of the totem pole, cognition-wise. At least not in certain areas. Better get used to your goals being self-driven. If your sense of self relies on being the best you've got a problem.

And now it's everybody else's turn!

At least starving artists are safe!

I didn't say that. I just pointed out that computers are better at these mental activities than humans, and humans still do them. More in fact.

Academic mathematics isn't an operational institution.

Though its funding does move with the number of major projects academia is tasked with that rely on mathematics to advance, it's a fundamental knowledge area that has no operational requirements to exist.