What argument, "a theory was wrong"? No, the inane central observation, the observation that a researcher was unable to predict a discovery before it was discovered, remains true despite the gratuitous insertion of a little bit of bullshit about AI learning.

I suppose it's additionally trying to imply something else, like "due to a pattern of researchers being unable to discover discoveries before they discover them, AGI is just around the corner".

its one thing to say "we dont know"

it's a different thing to say "it's mathematically impossible"

so if it turns out it is possible, what then? was math broken? or the researcher an idiot who either doesnt know math, or is just bullshitting non-existing proofs?