It is not about math vs. literature
In a conversation with economist Tyler Cowen last month, Peter Thiel expresses his view that hashtag#LLMs will make things "worse for the math people than the word people." He continues: "What people have told me is that they think within three to five years, the AI models will be able to solve all the US Math Olympiad problems. That would shift things quite a bit."
If that is the argument, it is weak. Solving math olympiad problems may be very hard for humans, but coming up with problems that are interesting and just hard enough, on the other hand, is an art that requires mathematical creativity. A related example is that of theorem provers and proof assistants, which have been around and improving for years: they can help prove whether a proof is correct or not in a superhuman way but won't be able to determine if a theorem or a proof is of any interest. There are trillions of uninteresting theorems out there.
So the real dichotomy is not between math and word, it is between norm and exception, the routine and the unusual, the meaningless and critical thinking, brute force and creativity. The future belongs to critical thinking curators. The well-rounded.