> but philosophically could it create a problem it couldn't solve? And what would be the value in writing that out?

Of course. It could hallucinate a nonsense, call it a problem, and fail to solve it.

The question is whether it could create an interesting problem, and be unable to solve it.

If the answer is yes, and yet we can solve it, it would have immense potential consequences for the ontology of mind and machine.

I'm quite excited to see how this intersection of the limited and the unlimited plays out.

Posing problems is often easier thwn solving them, so yes? Fermats last theorem is posed in two lines. Took 300 years and massive advances in geometry to solve.