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.

That is what I am gathering, too. I've been watching this from the sidelines, really confused by all the people moaning endlessly about how this revolution is somehow damaging to the community of mathematicians, which makes no sense to me no matter how many times I read their arguments.

But realizing that the primary driver was never actually proving the conjectures, nor understanding the proofs, sheds light into the issue. Many are not satisfied with the prospect of curating and preserving an ever growing collection of discoveries; what they wanted is being the discoverers themselves.

Which to me is mind boggling, because that is not what they have been saying aloud all along. Maybe it's my autism speaking, but I really thought they cared about the resulting knowledge rather than being recognized by their peers. How naïve of me to think that they were above that.

Meanwhile, people who simply enjoy having a tool that facilitates solving problems, because having a solution is their true goal rather than an excuse to obtain recognition or validation, are excited to use this new wonder.

[dead]