Post-human mathematics
I think one of the greatest difficulties in completely automated mathematics would be the discovery of mostly those things which are interesting. If computer mathematics is ever to diverge from human thinking, someone must pay to keep the lights on. Since nobody would pay for random points in theorem-space, it must have some way of figuring out what the human brains down at the breaker box actually want. This to me looks a lot like the problem of computer automated storytelling or even art.Also, I don't think the alien-ness of computer proofs is a given. Perhaps someday some psychologist or philosopher might work out exactly what our cognition likes to work with, upon which time you could write a proof compiler that outputted those things.That raises and interesting question. Can all interesting proofs be built with human-friendly steps? Maybe that's why we haven't worked out P and NP.