Terence argues that explanation of results ("understanding") will be the new bottleneck in math research but I am not sure this is the real bottleneck for progress.

Understanding was critical for the field to progress when only humans were involved but if humans are not needed to make progress, I wonder if we split into two worlds: an AI math-world where amazing new results continue at a rapid pace bottlenecked only by compute/cost and a human math-world where we understand a subset of the AI math-world as a hobby (similar to Stockfish vs human chess).