[sinenomine]

> Most people will both lose time with false-start approaches that are scrapped

To a discerning eye this pattern looks like stronger minds implementing higher quality tree search[1], either through implementing higher quality neural search heuristics for tree pruning or via greater search depth.

Given relative NP-hardness of the problems[2] we are usually dealing with at our line of work and what we know about planning in machines and animals[3], it doesn't look immediately implausible.

With planning capability strong enough, one doesn't need trial and error in the real world for moderately complex problems: the plan devised through internal search is good enough to work on the first try. Weaker planners have to compensate by executing more rollouts and using the real world as a ground truth model.

1. https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.08265

2. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...

3. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ejn.13851

[deltaonefour]

And also it implies lack of creativity.. Novel solutions lie in places that aren't part of the efficient search and can be filtered out by heuristics. Some solutions can only be found by random walk similar to biology and natural selection.

Your train of thought fits with my statement on how there are two pillars of intelligence. Creativity and "lack of brain fog"