I am stating a counter-argument to a common argument.

You are simply giving a different argument than the one I'm giving a counter to. Yes, of course, if including human understanding results in strictly better results than AI, then there is an argument for the value supplied by human mathematicians.

But that's an argument that human understanding is on the path to better outcomes. It's not an argument that the intrinsic worth of human understanding is a reason to support mathematicians.