[intended]

Science is not in the proving of it.

It’s in the disproving of it, and in the finding of the terms that help others understand the limits.

I dont know why it took me so long to come to that sentence. Yes, everyone can trot out their core examples that reinforce the point.

The research is motivated by these examples in the first place.

[Agraillo]

Good point. LLMs can be treated as "theories" and then they definitely meet falsifiability [1] allowing researchers finding "black swans" for years to come. Theories in this case can be different. But if the theory is of logical or symbolic solver then Wolfram's Mathematica may be struggle with understanding the human language as an input, but when evaluating the results, well, I think Stephen (Wolfram) can sleep soundly, at least for now

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability