Generative AI will not produce “Valley-Crosser” science
At this point this is where I stand on science and arts by ‘thethingwedontsaythenameof’.
Speaking as a scientist, `bots’ or whatever terminology we choose, will, in my opinion, very easily outperform human performance in `Hill Climber’ science.
Still speaking as a scientist, and personally, I very much doubt that bots will be able to produce `Valley Crosser’ science.
(Hill Climber versus Valley Crosser science is a distinction coined by Eric Weinstein, see more below)
Note: For those who have not heard about Valley crosser versus Hill climber science.
I can never find the right citation where Eric Weinstein is supposed to have introduced this. Here goes in a description by Lee Smolin in an article:
“Some scientists…are what we might call “hill climbers”. They tend to be highly skilled in technical terms and their work mostly takes established lines of insight that pushes them further; they climb upward into the hills in some abstract space of scientific fitness, always taking small steps to improve the agreement of theory and observation. These scientists do “normal” science. In contrast, other scientists are more radical and adventurous in spirit, and they can be seen as “valley crossers”. They may be less skilled technically, but they tend to have strong scientific intuition — the ability to spot hidden assumptions and to look at familiar topics in totally new ways.”