I mean, of course, if you make the benefit of the result itself large enough than yes, by all means; I'm sure Terry would agree: if there was some algebraic geometry proof that could be used to build a life-saving drug, then I don't think folks would have a problem with using AI to prove it. But most math isn't like this. Most math has very little immediate effect on the real world.

There is a tradeoff that is implicit in this entire discussion: if I can go out and use a result to do a thing much much better/faster/easier than I could yesterday, like a real and useful thing in the real world, then the result itself has value. The cost incurred by swarm solving that individual problem is relatively low and isolated, and the value added is clear, so great, we should do it! But if proving a result only allows us to apply it to more mathematical questions, then there isn't really value added aside from our own value we place in the results, and that value comes from our understanding. So now, swarm solving random math problems is taking away our opportunity to solve these things ourselves.

And people who don't have math backgrounds will poo poo this whole "opportunity to solve problems ourselves" stance, but it is 100% the way mathers think about this stuff. When I was a math major in undergrad I actually had a friend who told me that he didn't want to give me hints on a difficult homework problem because he wanted me to have the opportunity to solve it myself. Like, his _present_ to me was to give me an opportunity to solve a hard but rewarding problem.

> But most math isn't like this. Most math has very little immediate effect on the real world.

Then isn't it fair to ask why that math deserves to be done right now? Just because a problem can be formulated and piques your interest while leading to more problems that pique your interest, that doesn't mean someone on this planet has to work on it right now.

If you're one of the brightest minds in the world who wants society to credit you for your work (and fund your career!), and are finding that the rest of the world is replacing you with automation, and you're agreeing you don't anticipate your work to even have an effect on the real world in the foreseeable future... why is it unreasonable to expect you to start working on problems for which you can make a clearer case of usefulness in the horizon, at least for the time being?