I don't see how you came to that conclusion, since I'm telling you the actual state of play. There's a big literature on what results require the Axiom of Choi

I don't see how you came to that conclusion, since I'm telling you the actual state of play. There's a big literature on what results require the Axiom of Choice, for example. (The book Handbook of Analysis and Its Foundations covers this thoroughly.) There are many results on what follows from the Continuum Hypothesis or other cardinal arithmetic axioms. There is a big literature on what follows from assuming the existence of large cardinals. There's a separate literature on adding "forcing axioms", like Martin's maximum. There are hundreds of papers on open questions that are settled by adding additional axioms to ZFC, and to identifying the weakest axioms to add to settle various open questions. In another direction, there's even a literature on what happens when you allow sets to contain themselves as members, like Aczel's Anti-Foundation Axiom. There's literatures on purely constructive versions of set theory, where everything has to be computable. Like I mentioned before (reverse mathematics), there's work on what happens when you adopt much weaker axiom sets, like second-order arithmetic but weak choice principles such as taking Kruskal's tree theorem as an axiom. So while AI would accelerate this work, the existing body of work on alternate axioms is tremendous. A surprisingly large amount of it translates between systems, and there are precise tools to measure how weak or strong a system is, relative to its competitors.