However, recent advances in both AI and proof formalization have begun to vastly accelerate and automate the first two components of this process. This is leading to a new type of "impedance mismatch": problems for which solutions can be rapidly generated and verified in a mostly automated process, but for which no human author has understood the arguments well enough to initiate the (much slower) digestion process.

In fact, with the current cultural incentives that reward the first authors to "solve" the problem, rather than the later authors who "digest" the solution, one may end up with the perverse situation in which an AI-generated (and formally verified) solution to an problem that is presented to the community without any significant digestion may actually *inhibit* the progress of the field that the problem lies in, by discouraging any further attempts to work on the problem, simplify and explain the proof, and extract broader insights. (2/3)

But we are now entering an era where generative cognitive tasks, such as finding a proof to a given problem, are becoming cheap (as measured per user, rather than through overall capital investment) and relatively plentiful, analogously to how the Green Revolution dramatically increased crop yields and significantly reduced the occurrence of famine. As such, we are beginning to experience Adams' somewhat turbulent "Inquiry" phase, in which fundamental questions, such as why mathematicians even seek proofs in the first place, and what qualities besides correctness do we want from such proofs, are now being seriously discussed not just by philosophers of mathematics, but by practicing mathematicians as well.

However, at the other end of this transitional period is the "Sophistication" phase, in which our community has fully transitioned from a scarcity mindset to an abundance mindset. The objective will no longer be to accumulate as many proofs (of varying levels of quality) as possible, but to create more sophisticated experiences *around* curated collections of proofs: enjoyable conversations over lunch, rather than to scavenging for all available edible food sources. This will require the mathematicians of the future to prioritize a different set of skills than the ones we promote currently: "culinary" skills, such as mathematical exposition and construction of "big picture" narratives, may become at least as important as the "food gathering" skills of locating proofs. (2/2)