Nobody determined the usefulness of the internal combustion engine or the aeroplane after the fact. They were goals specifically worked towards. For every useful discovery that comes from this hobbyist approach there are far more that aren’t, and those would have been discovered during a goal orientated research program.

However, with AI it actually may become so cheap that the scattergun random approach becomes more viable rather than less. It’s when human time and resources are scarce that you need to optimise. The hobbyist approach may therefore ironically continue, but without the hobbyists.

> Publicly funded maths research should continue, even if some taxpayers feel it's a waste of money.

Note, I think the debate is mainly over what research should be funded, not whether any research should be funded.

it's the same - what research getting funded should not be determined by the applied nature of the research.

In fact, the taxpayer should be funding fundamental research because it's so hard to justify profit from it - but that funding would benefit all in the long future.

So leaving the applied research that have commercial value be funded by private, commercial interests, would make more sense.

> usefulness can only be determined after the fact.

Thats great! So in other words it should be perfectly fine for AI to solve all of the supposedly useless math problems so that it might possibly be useful later. No need to worry about the mathematicians hobbies here.

> No need to worry about the mathematicians hobbies here.

of course not.

Hobbies can still be done even if AI gets it done more quickly. Just like today, where knives are made much faster/cheaper in presses and CNC machines, vs a blacksmith hammering. But still, there are hobby blacksmiths.