I think it is like saying what is the point of playing chess when you can never beat stockfish?

What is Magnus Carlsen going to do when he can't beat the computer?

It seems like a category error between humans using tools and humans building tools.

There is not much point in trying to figure out a better chess engine. There has never been a better time though to want to learn chess.

I find the idea that the computer will discover mathematics and humans call it a day rather ridiculous. As if humans will not then spend their time understanding and incorporating the ideas from the computer.

Alphafold is a better example. Alphafold is only bad if you spent your life trying to solve protein folding. But even if you did, that is the same person who is the most setup to reap the benefits of the unlock in the pragmatic application of protein folding.

We don't figure out how to get machines to harvest corn and then spend all day sitting around eating corn in between naps.

> AI doing math for math’s sake? And doing what with it?

Stuff! Inscrutable stuff, maybe, but that's not "doing math for math's sake."

> AI doing math for math's sake?

Yes, why not? And, of course, AI doing math for AI.

We may not be needed forever...

I don't understand how to make a modern CPU. I'm not involved in the manufacturing of it. From my perspective, there may as well not be any human involvement. I can still use the resulting chip (in an larger system of other things I can't make and wasn't involved in) to argue with you on the internet.

It becomes another abstraction, really. As long as we can use it for something useful, it's still valuable.