See professor Williams' thoughts on a recent conjecture that openai proved: https://people.csail.mit.edu/virgi/thoughts.txt
And Williams thoughts are kind of idealistic. "Now the credit is shared across the entire field". This "credit" does not give your department grants or further your own career.
Rather it incentivizes you to be the first one to prompt, and to steal ideas from your peers because you can prompt better and have your name on more discoveries.
I don't think you disagree with the comment. Maybe it's a cynical way to describe the situation, and it sounds mean, but it doesn't make it untrue.
If mathematicians can't be motivated to understand math and advance human understanding via (for example) reading AI proofs because they can't put their name on new discoveries, then yes we need to figure out the motivations.
> It is highly reductive to argue that the only motivation is as crass as you put it.
"Genuine curiosity and underestanding" is apparently not enough to motivate all mathematicians (I'd even extend this to all researchers in all fields). If AI creates an environment where "prestige" can no longer be assigned to individuals and this creates a crisis in motivation among researchers, well, this is a problem, and accusing researchers as "greedy for status and clout trying to write their name on new discoveries in blood" is a somewhat mean and distasteful description of how we got into the situation. But again, not untrue IMHO.
Note that they didn't say the greed for status is the only motivation. We're adults here. We can see the strawman. I think we're all on the same page. Quit crying over insults.
This goes a fair bit beyond an insult. I'm calling out the frankly reductive and sophomoric frat boy thinking behind this statement.
I think some of it might be nihilism without actually thinking about it more deeply and trying to be constructive. Some of it is just .. well .. shallow thinking perhaps without much life experience, I wouldn't speculate.