> An important topic that must be addressed in any ABM application is the identification of the bounds of the work and the relationship between the model and t

> An important topic that must be addressed in any ABM application is the identification of the bounds of the work and the relationship between the model and the related real-world situation Here I think is the core of the whole problem: In case of people (as quoted "often people in epidemiology") how can we verify if ABM is correctly modeling people if we still don't know a lot about ourselves? For example we don't yet have a theory of consciousness, or we still are not able to accurately explain the process of how a child learns (yes we have multiple theories that we switch when one is not working) and so many other things. The same can be said when we model other things from planets to animals and particles: How can we know that the model is accurate? I am not saying the new way of doing science using "AI" is not science, but I am saying we need to move pass bold headlines and make sure that we results we take out of this have value and hold out.