What do you mean “we won’t need mathematics as it is today”?
To further human understanding is itself a goal that single-handedly justifies our efforts.
Jumping straight to the “answer” and therefore missing both the understanding of the actual problem, and any useful discoveries along the way is a waste at best, and actively harmful at worst.
I'm not the one you replied to, but I think I get their point. If you have a machine that can solve math problems at the push of a button, you don't really need to amass discoveries anymore just in case someone might need it years down the line.
Someone in the thread mentioned Minkowski’s math work being instrumental to Einstein’s physics. If Einstein had had a math machine that can spit out the result at will, he wouldn't have needed Minkowski.
Nevertheless, I also see the opposing point: if Minkowski hadn't already published his results, it's possible Einstein would not have even had the inspiration to derive general relativity from it. I think this is the human aspect most critics are worried about.
Physics alone is more than enough to “further human understanding”. All current mathematicians can move to other sciences, closest being fields in physics, and it will all continue to progress just fine.
[dead]