they're really not because clearly their sole method of engaging with this discourse is projection.
> Being purely for the sake of improving human understanding
no matter what anyone tells you, there is absolutely no working mathematician that wakes up every day and goes to work based off that desire. it's not a priesthood, it's a job.
>As someone who did math professionally for a long time, I agree with you. I think it has as much value as chess (a game we made up which we play for fun).
I mean, I don't see how this is much different from what I argued, no? Nobody really cares about computer chess all that much at this point except as a benchmark of technological achievement, and except to the extent that it helps human players better understand the game and improve their own play. We still play chess, even though computers can do it better than we can, because we find it interesting.
people are making this comparison so often it's borderline embarassing. yes we do and there's seemingly a possibility that math goes the way of chess. now answer this: do we award doctorates in chess? do people get paid to study and teach and publish on chess on the same scale that they do with math today?
i'm not an asshole for pointing out that your argument is by now a trope and also wrong <shrug>
> but I will say that a large amount of that activity is financed by demand from students in one shape or another
you couldn't be more wrong - tuition pays for almost none of researchers' salaries, neither phd students nor faculty.