> the rampant plagiarism that has been reported across multiple problems now, the unethical attempts to oust authors, the outrageous attempts to scoop researchers instead of collaborating with them and building on existing projects

I think this is an aspect of academic math that a lot of people whish to see crash and burn - the attention and accreditation economy.

> it's probably easy to miss if you have never engaged with research in maths

I don't think anybody are missing anything, in particular not here.

The argument is not far from the senio developer who knows the ins and outs of a code base. Now AI comes along and they complain that they will loose grip of the code base.

At first that is correct. Secondly you accept that the grip might not be that important after all. At least not for a commercial project where you are a cog in a machine.

The question is whether it is different for mathematics.

That's the open question.

I think most people here get that this is the point?

The point beyond this one is that an AI proof doesn’t prevent humans from working on the problem, it destroys the current economic incentive to work on the problem. Perhaps we should rethink the current incentives. In order to make money as a chess player, you don’t need to beat AI, or ban AI from playing chess.

If mathematics took a similar approach (we don’t get paid for solving net-new problems, we get paid for enriching human understanding), then there’s no issue.