I recognize you are probably just trying to win an argument, but what actually matters is that the ecosystem of human mathematics has produced strong results and can continue or not continue to do so depending on how we adapt to this new technology.

Aren't the best mathematicians the best at solving the hardest problems? I don't see how you can argue this without assuming an arbitrary scale for being "good" at something.

It can be simultaneously true that a group of not very good at something and that that group is the best at doing something.

As I said, I don't think so as long as you derive your scale of difficulty from the domain itself.