> At a minimum a discussion like this should acknowledge the possibility that the current rate of AI progress continues apace.

But the post does do this: "[...] even if their capacity becomes far superior, there will always be a need for mathematicians at all levels to guide research in paths that make sense for humans to walk (not run)."

> Of course it will get better at exposition than humans.

I'm not so sure about this, because I don't know how one would train towards better exposition as it's not easy to check for good or bad exposition at scale.