[mexicocitinluez]

> but that is the answer that is a consensus among experts

Do you have any resources that back up such a big claim?

> relatively small mount of focus & critical thinking on the issue of how LLMs & other categories of “AI” work.

I don't understand this line of thought. Why wouldn't the ability to recognize patterns in existing literature or scientific publications result in potential new understandings? What critical thinking am I not doing?

> postulate “new” scientific ideas

What are you examples of "new" ideas that aren't based on existing ones?

When you say "other categories of AI", you're not including AlphaFold, are you?