The main flaw in this write-up, AI or not, is it ignores the Bohr-Einstein debates on QM and Bell’s Inequality. I suspect the article deliberately ignores that debate.

If it was AI-generated, I’d guess the prompt included something like ‘support Einstein’s hidden variables theory with an argument that includes ‘ontology’, ‘machine learning’, ‘Copenhagen’ but specifically excludes any mention of Bell’s inequality, EPR, and also do not mention hidden-variables specifically.’

I want to make my stance clear.

Bell's theorem rules out local hidden variables, not hidden variables. An ontology-first approach to QM (rare in modern physics) takes Bell as the constraint it has to operate inside (same as Bohm-de Broglie) rather than as a settled debate.

The Bohr-Einstein debate wasn't adjudicated on substance. Copenhagen won sociologically, and the renewed traffic on it is the field acknowledging that "settled" was always a cultural claim.

My analysis is on diagnosing the methodological inversion that produced the impasse, rather than picking sides inside it.

Can you briefly explain how the debates refute the basic argument? It's a somewhat interesting comparison he makes, even if AI was used to write that doesn't necessarily make the argument less interesting. I do agree that the end seems like motivated reasoning.