No, they disappear completely. You stop thinking in terms of "factories" or "strategies" and start to think in terms of simply passing methods around, etc.
Also - there are such "nonexciting patterns" in OOP languages as well, and they are much less often abused. For example "a switch inside a while" pattern. Which I think I will need to name "StateMachinePattern" to make it cool and stop people refactoring it into strategies and stuff.
There is value in one-screen definition of the whole machine, instead of separating it into 6 files.
I never really saw design patterns as a reference manual for how to solve problems (as I think some people do/did). Instead, I saw it as a shared vocabulary.
For example, if I say that X is a factory for Y or an iterator over Z, you know exactly what I mean.
In Haskell even the compiler knows that there are common elements to all instances of the monad pattern---they can reference a common typeclass. (But even if you don't implement an instance of the typeclass, you might still have implemented the monad pattern, but just don't realize it.) In eg JavaScript it's all by convention only.
But even in Haskell, the compiler does not enforce all monad laws, yet.
A more common example, but perhaps invisible today, is the `function' pattern. In most assembly languages, functions are a convention only, and you have to manipulate your call stack somewhat manually.
In almost all languages anyone is using these days, that's done automatically. Functions are not `invisible' but they are citizens with more right, ie the compiler / interpreter knows about them, you can give them a name, and in some more modern languages even pass them around, or _not_ give them a name.
Some patterns do become invisible as you say.
`Factories' are one that only exists because of weird restrictions in eg Java. They are invisible in Python.
In Haskell for different reasons we have a similar solution where we define extra functions to return our create our objects instead of using constructors directly. Instead of factories, people call these smart constructors (https://wiki.haskell.org/Smart_constructors).
Smart constructors in Haskell could go away with a stronger type system like in Agda. (Yes, there are languages with stronger types than what Haskell has.)