@wmv has the correct answer. The original argument is utopian (can never happen in a free society) and basically proposes going back to an era of very few scie

@wmv has the correct answer. The original argument is utopian (can never happen in a free society) and basically proposes going back to an era of very few scientists, like I dunno, when most people were illiterate peasants and the sea of retardness was dotted here and there with an Euclid or a Fibonacci. Which sounds good in theory if all you had were Einsteins and Newtons and Kelvins but in practice at least some of the available places would be eliminated by nepotism, and most of the approved scientists while genuine in their effort, would still produce mediocre results. Science results, like LLM training, depends on scale. So I would argue rather, let anyone who wants to do science, do it. The cashier lady and plumber guy are unlikely to wanna do research but out of those who do, eventually something's gonna come out. Only it's not clear straight from the start out of whom.