I’m sorry you feel like such a victim but it’s a topic in which having an awareness of how the mathematics culture works matters, which honestly should go without saying. You’re pitting yourself, someone with no understanding of the system, in direct contrast to someone who understands the system very well. You have no evidence for your view either. You’re just contributing noise.
I provided an argument: mathematics is a discipline where we invent axioms and try to find interesting consequences of those axioms. By its nature, there are an infinite number of possible problems. Even if there is a finite number of problems interesting to humans (which could itself be questioned), we don't have any reason to think that we are anywhere close to running out of them. Saying there is "no evidence" for my view is a non sequitur; the burden of proof would be to establish that there's a finite number of interesting problems and that we've, say, exhausted 80% of them.
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.
You’re free to generate an arbitrary set of axioms and study the consequences. Zero people will care. People care about doing mathematics in a community, working toward recognizable goals.
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.
