> Further, you must make a hypothesis, then run experiments - things an AI cannot do. Uh, you do realize that AI and classifiers are two different things right

> Further, you must make a hypothesis, then run experiments - things an AI cannot do. Uh, you do realize that AI and classifiers are two different things right? Like, there are literally, right now - like, already - AI which make a hypothesis and then run an experiment. Just because it is popular to phrase things as supervised learning problems and just because we often want to have classifiers as components of systems we build doesn't mean that is the only technique in AI that exists. Honestly, your entire point reeks of this really unjustified hypocrisy that makes you think you don't realize this. You seem to pick the cherries for the human, but grab only the poisonous mushrooms for the AI. For example, you seem to close your eyes when you hear about the replication crisis in the social science acting as if humans only emit proofs when they don't, but you're more than willing to focus on how some subsets of AI don't emit proofs despite there being subsets of humans which don't emit proofs.