“If AI continues to bulldoze pure math, it’s going to crush the hopes of the young people who were dreaming of joining this tradition.” With all due respect, AI ain’t bulldozing anything. This is an unnecessarily apocalyptic way to describe what is happening. And as for crushing hopes, I suspect these apocalyptic narratives are doing more hope crushing than a collection of PDFs idly sitting in a repository. It’s some mathematicians’ pride that got crushed. Other mathematicians are simply engaging: reading, understanding, explaining, experimenting, developing new ideas, writing papers, and, yes, advancing mathematics. Of course, our profession needs to adapt many of its practices and habits, and quickly. But unless the most pessimistic voices in mathematics, the math Cassandras so to say, eventually convince the world to defund mathematics, there will be jobs, because there will be a great deal to do. What, exactly, is the proof of forced Navier–Stokes useful for until the ideas in it are extracted from the Lean proof and its confused, sloppy, natural-language translation, and integrated into scientific discourse? A mathematical proof does not automatically become part of our mathematical understanding simply by existing. Someone has to understand it, explain it, connect it to what we already know, and determine what else can be done with its ideas. This is not a secondary activity that mathematicians perform after the real work has been done. It is a fundamental part of how mathematics advances. And it remains central to science, unless the plan is to delegate our entire intellectual life to machines and go live like brutes, mindlessly spending our (very hypothetical) universal basic incomes. One further point: people are only focusing on LLM-generated proofs, but how many papers will humans write without using an LLM, simply in response to the new ideas and perspectives that enter the field? It is not even clear to me that the best results will necessarily come from LLMs. Mathematicians have changed science in small and large ways, over and over again, through fifteen-page papers built around a single lateral insight or a powerful vision. Why should that stop now? There will be a lot of work to do: Why should young mathematicians see this as the end of their intellectual ambitions? The ongoing apocalypse is psychological rather than technological, and it is not being imposed on us by frontier labs. It’s more into how some of us have decided to think about this. I totally understand the initial emotional reaction, but maybe it’s time to move on. Let’s get back to work. Advance mathematics, improve math education, demonstrate why our work deserves support. That is how we secure our future. Young people will adapt faster than we do, and soon enough they will be leading the way.