Even in a world where AIs solve and explain mathematics better than humans, mathematical work and teaching will not disappear: they will shift toward relational curation and mentoring — the museum-curator and teacher role — because motivation and trust are fundamentally social phenomena.

Across the close of the conversation, Grant argues that the lasting human role in mathematics is curation — deciding what ideas are worth pursuing — and mentoring, which remains a social, coaching function that explanations alone cannot replace. He advises students to understand where their value and funding actually come from, and to lean into the teaching role, which he calls one of the most stable post-AGI careers. ✦ AI generated

Grant Sanderson · Dwarkesh Podcast · 2026-06-30 · original ↗

One interesting take that I've heard about what mathematicians will end up being is that it's actually more analogous to art museum curators than anything else. The AI solved the thing, so the art exists. They even know how to explain it really well. But you still want someone to help you navigate this nearly infinite space of what ideas are worth engaging with. Even if AIs were in some sense better at that, I think we would always still prefer a human that we had a relationship with, because the way we get motivated to be interested in things is a social phenomenon. So my role, and arguably that of other mathematicians, might actually just shift subtly into that curation direction of what ideas are worth pursuing. I actually think teaching is one of the most stable post-AGI jobs that there is, because it's so relational. This is where parents want to spend their money if they have an abundance of wealth: on good teaching and good educating. It goes so far beyond explanations. Even if LLMs are good explainers, the thing that a teacher is doing is such a social, coaching, mentor-type thing that that's probably one of the most stable careers that's going to exist over the next fifty years.

verbatim transcript · starts at 76:07