I want to address the question/comments with this answer, which contains some links/quotes and at the end I put in my two cents.
Mathematician Doron Zeilberger:
“For most people, the computer is only a tool, like a vacuum cleaner. For me, it’s like a colleague. Traditional mathematics is based on the notion of rigorous formal proof, and I think this is going to be obsolete, I think since computers are so powerful, they open up new vistas, and the old agenda of proving everything so rigorously is not as exciting as it was before.”
See In Mathematics, Mistakes Aren’t What They Used To Be
Vladimir Voevodsky who won the Fields Medal in mathematics is also interested in computers:
“The world of mathematics is becoming very large, the complexity of mathematics is becoming very high, and there is a danger of an accumulation of mistakes,” Voevodsky said. Proofs rely on other proofs; if one contains a flaw, all others that rely on it will share the error.
See Will Computers Redefine the Roots of Math?
When a legendary mathematician found a mistake in his own work, he embarked on a computer-aided quest to eliminate human error. To succeed, he has to rewrite the century-old rules underlying all of mathematics.
This video is also interesting,
What if Current Foundations of Mathematics are Inconsistent?
My two cents:
Five years ago few researchers thought that robotics/AI would be able to play the game of Go or Poker at world class levels. The progress that has been made in both games has been awesome, and AI may very soon dominate these two very different types of games. It is reasonable to expect increasing interplay between theoretical computer science and pure mathematics.
So, what is the big controversy? Well, if I am allowed to hold an opinion, perhaps that the dividing line between computers and pure mathematics has not really blurred at all over the past forty or so years.