I think that number might be a bit higher if students had access to near-constant tutoring to answer any kind of questions that come up; I think a lot of kids get frustrated because they don't immediately get something and there isn't someone around to answer questions.

Sample size of one, and obviously there's a million confounding variables here, but I think that my love of math stems from the fact that both my parents, and especially my dad, really loved math (and physics), and so whenever I had any questions about any aspect of math (at least up to calculus and differential equations), I could ask one of them for help pretty much whenever I wanted, and they would enthusiastically help me immediately, and eventually I grew to love it myself.

Eventually I did well enough in math to where they gave me a test in school and I was able to skip two grades in it (going from 7th grade to 9th grade level). I ended up getting much more into discrete math and surpassed my parents in the more "pure" math. Even if my genetics were completely unaltered, I am quite convinced that if my parents weren't there to provide constant help then that wouldn't have happened.

I think AI has the possibility of providing a comparable experience to what I had. It can patiently explain every aspect of math that any middle or high school student is likely to come across, and I think it has power to "de-frustrate" them as a result.

I teach people who thought this way, and later decided to enter a career that requires basic data analysis literacy. They struggle with things like order of operations, which is incredibly frustrating. Teaching math up to the high school/introductory college level is about building foundational skills that can be applied in different directions. Will they need to apply trig identities? Probably not, but the process of getting there in high school is good for their minds and foundational abilities.

So yes, I'd personally say we should expect people to "keep up in math".

Those 5% go on to make an upper-class salary sitting in an air-conditioned office instead of a lower-class salary turning wrenches and stacking boxes. What makes more sense than ebabling everyone who can to attain that life?

(Plus every one of them who gets out makes life better for the rest at least by reducing downward pressure on wages, and hopefully also by creating new business opportunities that raise wages further by increasing supply. Rigorous education is almost always a win-win: https://matiane.wordpress.com/2021/09/15/democratic-educatio... )

Speaking of AI, I wouldn't be surprised if, in the next decade, jobs that involve turning wrenches would pay significantly more than most jobs that can be done fully on a computer.

I mean wouldn't those blue collar jobs get more and more saturated then if office jobs get less and less pay so people start moving to those? Personally I very much respect people who do those jobs, but I could never do them because of my disability so my only good choice is pretty much computer related jobs or then it's back to some sort of government benefits.

Perhaps, but only because most jobs done on computers today are by people who also have little if any math or programming ability. Change that and it's a different world to make those predictions in.

There is a reason why we just don't give calculators for kids in elementary school. They need to know the basics first. Calculators have been around for quite long time. Why AI suddenly changes that?