I find his explanation of the reverse quite clear:
> Any proof that can be spelled out at a level of detail sufficient to be analyzed by a computer is necessarily going to consist entirely of steps that are each completely comprehensible to a mathematician.
This means there must either be a lot of steps or a lot of different paths to follow in order for a computer to be of use. Neither is the case here.
> Any proof that can be spelled out at a level of detail sufficient to be analyzed by a computer is necessarily going to consist entirely of steps that are each completely comprehensible to a mathematician.
This means there must either be a lot of steps or a lot of different paths to follow in order for a computer to be of use. Neither is the case here.