Having super strong go-engines has definitely changed how the game is played at top level. But how?
I watched a youtube video on subject and from there I got understanding that some basic josekins like san-san invasion are perhaps not the best options. Keeping sente is more valuable than previously taught. Are the other finding and do they have any impact on lower echelons of go players?

Hwang In-seong 8 dan's 2022 Congress lecture series vol.1 [Four Trendy Ideas]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgUnD434NH4&t=855s

I have not studied the impact on top players but have experienced a wall of those 5d+ opponents with AI study I could not beat before my AI study started. AI study has kept me busy for 9 months now and I notice an impact on my level.

In the 90s, studying the opening from books and pro games was one factor for the 3k to 3d part of my fast improvement. However, later as a 5d I realised that I did not really understand the opening as taught by old books and pros. The more traditional opening theory I learned the more I saw nothing but contradictions. Eventually, I felt that I had no useful opening knowledge at all. I saw stronger players playing stronger opening but did not really understand how to play alike. With no traditional source that could improve my opening, I was stuck.

Therefore, my AI study has been mostly the early stage of the game. What I hoped to learn from AI I can. AI confirms my prior impression that all (ok, maybe 99%) traditional opening theory is useless. In stark contrast, AI opening makes sense and is consistent. It is not always easy though because the exact position can matter, deep tactical reading can be necessary, fights can be correct or very long term developments can be correct.

I presume some top players would also do similar AI study and it is an easy guess that they might draw similar conclusions. Such as: it is insufficient to play just efficiently - it is mandatory to play the most efficiently!

Many observations about AI Go are only in the eye of the beholder. The computer, unlike humans, will do the same thing on every move. If it protects a cutting point that is not because it thinks the alternative is too much, it is something it basically does after considering the alternatives seriously. It is the same with sente and gote, just as the compute will play marvelous sente sequences it also plays astonishing gote moves. A human player can't always do the same thing, they will make choices based on what is good enough and if they can better spend their energy on some other decision.

I think lot of people should pay more attention when it plays simply. If it simply connects, simply lives, simply defends and simply ends in gote, then that is something everyone could have done

One thing I have noticed is that if you look at human games from the past that the computer often thinks there is something fishy. There are weaknesses that it finds and wants to exploit. Sometimes the players of the game have the same idea but don't jump on it as quickly and often the defense is successful. Were as if you study the game with the computer it is clear that the attacker could have succeeded; the computer most of the time is silent about moves that don't work. However, if you look at computer vs. computer games there can be a ton of simple moves and both sides seem to have been ready for everything. The simplest explanation is probably just that the computer is much better at many aspects of the game than top pros were and if a much stronger program came along it would give old computer-computer games a similar treatment

I recon than that the top players have learned a lot from studying with computers but exactly what might be something they have to tell themselves