The parent poster isn't saying "advancement of knowledge" is some kind of universal goal for humanity at the cost of all else - and I would agree that it shouldn't be. They're suggesting that as an individual studying pure mathematics, the discovery of new truth is a self-consistent good.

Even taking a purely Kantian interpretation that would scale this beyond mathematicians - and that itself is a logical leap! - making a universal law out of "a discovery can be beautiful regardless of whether created by humans or AI" is is much more specific than the straw extrapolation you've created.

You can make literally any position sound awful by saying that orphans will be killed as a result. Let's try to think posts through.

They didn't say "advancing human knowledge regardless of the cost". That's a conclusion you jumped to because of your biases.

"Let's try to think posts through."

Have you considered that utilitarians actually exist?

If 20% more medical knowledge would save more lives long term, there are actually people, probably some browsing this website right now, maybe the person you're responding to, that actually think killing people up to the expected number of lives saved is justified.

I would personally call that evil, but it is thought through.