> But at the current time, the opposite is often occurring: problems are being solved autonomously by AI prompters who have no interest in the broader field itself once their initial target is "solved", and do not understand the AI output well enough to answer questions on the result, give talks, or otherwise interact with the rest of the field.

Sounds like Terence Tao would have said the same about Ramanujan who basically just "solved" problems without much explanation / reasoning / communication other than it just arrived from god.

In the case of Ramanujan, others took on the responsibility of socializing and community building knowing that he wouldn't do it himself. Why can't the same approach happen here?

There will be people who want to just "solve" math problems now that they have a new tool that lets them express themselves this way. Maybe the don't want to participate in the broader math community, etc. Why discourage them, or add friction / a barrier to them participating in their own way? Why not take on the burden of socializing, making sense of, and community building yourself?

There may be valid reasons here I'm missing, but to me this seems a bit like wanting others to approach a field in a particular way even though the field can support many ways.