There's no lack of humility here. I'm stating an opinion and giving my reasons for why I think it's true, while acknowledging my limited perspective. If I heard a convincing argument, or saw data that 90% of research mathematicians think we're at risk of running out of problems, then I would update my beliefs accordingly.
This is true of all subjects, but it’s hard to think of a subject where the gap is as stark as it is in mathematics — even intelligent outsiders have no idea what the subject is really about, and, even worse, they think they know (mainly because we all studied something also called ‘mathematics’ as children and assume that research mathematicians probably do something similar).
By the way, I agree with your original comment.
I don't think I'm the one adding noise here. You've done nothing but put words in my mouth, attack me personally, and use argument from authority instead of responding to the substance of the debate.
The infinitude of mathematics doesn’t matter. What matters if mathematics doesn’t change radically is the size of the database of AI results relative to the potential output of a human lifetime.
You don’t actually understand what argument from authority is. There’s an actual reason the “authority” here is being appealed to which is not just their authority. You don’t respect people who know more than you, but you should still read Terence Tao’s mathstodon posts on stripmining mathematics.
I get pissed off reading the ‘weird takes’ on mathematics from people who come from the tech world and don’t know what they’re talking about (but for some reason think they do). Not only is it just painful to read; it’s actively harmful.
Mathematicians are largely ignorant of software and are aware of and will freely admit to their own ignorance, but for some reason the software engineers here are largely ignorant of mathematics AND think they know it inside out.
It sounds like you’re actually more well informed than most. Don’t take my comments personally, in any case.