Note that, while Knuth believes that P = NP, he doesn't believe that it will have practical applications because the exponents and/or constants will be galactic.

> to be very clear: the previous paragraph is rather a clear statement against this kind of "hero worship" with respect to mathematical or scientific problems.

No, it's an irrational rejection of the notion of expertise. The experts are not "heroes", they are simply people who have done vastly more study than folks like you or me. e.g., if Magnus Carlsen looks at a complex chess position and says that white is winning, I will trust his judgment far more than my own.

> The main argument in favor of P ≠ NP is the total lack of fundamental progress in the area of exhaustive search. This is, in my opinion, a very weak argument. The space of algorithms is very large and we are only at the beginning of its exploration. — Moshe Y. Vardi

That sounds particularly relevant in how AI-assisted/driven mathematical research is changing the game, where previous assumptions based on human experience/effort are being overturned unexpectedly.

stack overflow worthy levels of ego