That’s one perspective.

I just view it as a thing that can brute force and produce outputs - that it has no way of ‘knowing’ - but doesn’t need to since it’s just running off of probability.

No human can compete in that contest. But no llm can compete in the contest of ‘understanding’ and application in the real world - which is where 99% of the value is.

I’m very pro AI long term btw but I’m not blinded.

But it’s not brute force if it’s looking over everyone’s shoulder

Brute force would have been solving Navier-Stokes in 88 hours after plagiarizing all known 20th century math

When it needs to snoop live on what the actual mathematicians are working on that’s something else

Dont forget the holisitic validators/tools in the process. Probabilistics alone likely will not get you here. These rules are human made and without it, frontier models would not be able to compete, likely.

AI needs humans to encode ideas in words. It needs those ideas to span the space of possibilities of, say, Navier Stokes. Then AI can be, as you say, a terrifyingly effective way to search that space.

But when the building-block ideas are still being formed, I'm not sure that AI is good at forming them.