> Until we can demonstrate AI consciousness, “seeing the raw truth” will be a human activity.

I don't think this matters a bit. We individually can't demonstrate "consciousness" in other humans, it's not even a word with a definition. What we can do is miss the feeling of discovering something on one's own rather than having it explained to you over and over again until you understand it.

I mean, dead mathematicians are definitely not "conscious," but their books keep you from discovering things that you may have discovered yourself if left to your own devices.

The joy that was mentioned is the joy of knowing a bit of gossip that no one else knows, of being the first explainer. Interpretation is just being able to pass gossip on; a decidedly lesser joy. And there's no reason that AI shouldn't be able to explain findings in an intuitive way - LLMs at least purely operate based on human intuition as written in human communications and then captured in matrices.

If these proofs are good (doubtful, imo) and can be reduced (intuitively distilled, sorry), there's no reason that an LLM shouldn't be able to do that.