How did I read this long essay on math, something in which my brain lost excitement a couple of years into college?

If "To Engineer is human," then To pursue mathematics is to imagine, to meet challenges and grow from the experience, emphasis on experience, and sometimes wander off in a new direction from the initial goal,like an early "routine" photo trek of mine for some forgotten purpose happened upon a flower, new to me, of stunning beauty and amazing complexity (Calochortus).

It's, naturally, like life, where "how I got here" is full of meaning, as well as how I benefitted from, and interact with others. The author appreciates others, something a machine "with a brain the size of a planet" can't.

Unraveling the mysteries of the universe may be an endless task, and perhaps there's a lesson there. If it's just a simulation, what fun is a closed-form "solution"?

Exploring the universe, or math or physics is exploring ourselves, and that also changes us in the process.

Machine-wise, that's off-target, and a waste of time and electricity.

Much as “Stories create meaning as they touch our knowledge, experience, and as we process them with our minds and emotions," we're writing stories with our lives, problem solving, "accidental" discoveries and diversions, and interactions with others, which are real and meaningful on their own, and not really measurable or storable on silicon or other (unless we really are a simulation).

I would comment on misuse of technology, but that's the dark human side of technology and everything. Suffice it to say that besides "destroying" mathematics, AI can be used to destroy everything, and if the use of AI to "destroy nuclear proliferation," the solution might be more deadly than the problem it is addressing, and likely will be.

Beautiful writing. In my highest impression of (pure) math I've always thought of it as an art. We would think of AI-generated classical music as a waste, at least philosophically speaking--the point of writing music is to experience its creation. Unfortunately the public would not think the same of AI-generated math because it would be considered "relevant" to scientific matters. But the same is true. The point of doing math at the highest level is simply to experience doing it.

the assumption is "understanding" is something distinct from abstraction, compression, generalization, which are what theorem finding does. I would argue theorems are understandings. What does understanding mean otherwise in a non-circular way? Cultural significance? Mathematicians feeling threatened by automated math seems like a cultural issue to me not an understanding issue at least on the machines' side.

Incredibly well written essay!