john smith

Mathematicians are not just hoarding credit for puzzle answers. They build understanding. When a major proof appears, the author normally explains it, defends it, gives talks, answers questions, finds the key ideas, helps others use it, and turns it into new research directions. If the "solver" is an AI pipeline operated by people who cannot explain the result, the community gets the worst version of progress: priority claims without responsibility. The actual harm is not that AI helped solve something. If AI produced correct, understandable, checkable mathematics, mathematicians would eventually use it. The harm is flooding a field with alleged solutions while bypassing the human process that turns proofs into knowledge. It creates a backlog of expert review, discourages people from sharing open directions, lets shallow operators claim priority over work they do not understand, and converts researchers into janitors for machine slop. This is not like a cancer researcher crying because a cure was found. It is more like a company dumping hundreds of unverified drug candidates, announcing that cancer has been "massacred," and then mocking oncologists for asking for trials, mechanisms, evidence, and accountability. And honestly, the glee here is not even pro-science. It's just plain misanthropy. These people seem less excited that knowledge might advance and more excited that some class of humans might be humiliated, displaced, or made irrelevant. Did human beings hurt their feelings so badly that they now need a machine to avenge them against every profession that still values human expertise?