I dunno, I like math and I still think automatically solving problems is worth doing. If problem-solving is a hobby then it will still be a hobby after all this. If it's about doing things for humanity--which it often is since many thousands of people are paid to do it--then doing it more efficiently benefits humanity. If the value on the other hand comes from people being extremely good at math, rather than from them solving novel open problems, then we should pay them to do that, which is independent of whether the open problems are solved or not. There's just no version of this where "not solving the problems" is morally justifiable.
Now, I think it's the case that professional mathematics spends way too much money on open problems and way less than it should on pedagogy, exposition, mastery, etc. But that has always been a problem, even decades ago (I've been complaining about it my whole life). AI just finally puts pressure on the world to do something about it. I find it relieving, honestly. And I'm an AI skeptic in many other ways; it's not an AI-maximalism thing. I genuinely think the state of the field of mathematics has been something of a disaster for a long time (thanks, largely, due to the academic incentive structure which heavily favors novel results, no matter how esoteric).
Now, I think it's the case that professional mathematics spends way too much money on open problems and way less than it should on pedagogy, exposition, mastery, etc. But that has always been a problem, even decades ago (I've been complaining about it my whole life). AI just finally puts pressure on the world to do something about it. I find it relieving, honestly. And I'm an AI skeptic in many other ways; it's not an AI-maximalism thing. I genuinely think the state of the field of mathematics has been something of a disaster for a long time (thanks, largely, due to the academic incentive structure which heavily favors novel results, no matter how esoteric).