This is just moving the goalposts, yet again, all of mathematics has been hyper optimized on solving problem, proving theorems getting results and writing papers.
Only now that their job (the elites) has been automated was it really about explain results and theory building all this, despite those actions getting explicitly rejected from all the top journals (sans maybe math journals intended for a undergrad/high-school readership). People who weren't in the club and genuinely enjoy math are having the time of their life proving results. There is just a lot of groupthink and silent majority effects due to said elites running departments.
I use "theory-building" separately to Gowers since what he's talking about is field creation that solves tons of problems at once (Grothendieck, FTC, etc (I'll add AI itself here as a meta theory)) not making connections after the fact for the benefit of the lesser humans' understanding.
I have literally no idea what you're on about. All I said was we haven't seen LLMs produce any new conjectures/problems of a similar level to the ones they've been solving (and I even said "yet"). Have you seen any? What does this rant about "elites" have to do with my comment?
> Only now that their job (the elites) has been automated
I’m sorry, are you seriously referring to mathematicians as elites?
> People who weren't in the club and genuinely enjoy math are having the time of their life proving results
If they couldn’t do so before and they can now, it sounds like they don’t understand what their LLMs are producing anyways. That doesn’t sound very fun to me. If they genuinely enjoyed math, maybe they would want to understand it instead of prompting an LLM to do stuff for them?