Fully agreed on point A, but I've heard the "but then humans won't be trained" argument before and don't buy it. It's already the case that humans can cheat or

Fully agreed on point A, but I've heard the "but then humans won't be trained" argument before and don't buy it. It's already the case that humans can cheat or get buy without fully understanding the math or ideas they're working with. This is what PhD defences are for, and what paper reviews are for. Yes, likely we need to do something to improve peer review, but that is already true without AI. From a more philosophical point of view, if we did hypothetically have some AI assistant in science that could speed up discovery by say 2x, in some areas it seems almost unethical not to use it. E.g. how many more lives could be saved by getting medicine or understanding disease earlier? What if we obtained cleaner power generation or cleaner shipping technologies twice as fast? How many lives might be saved by curtailing climate change faster? To me, accelerating science is likely one of the most fundamentally important applications of modern AI we can work on.