But the activity of "attempting to find explanations" is specific.

The attempt to formulate laws (the "better faring hypoteses") can bring to "universal laws" or to more humble "patterns". It will contribute to the scientific effort - it does not exhaust it.

Next time we get the urge to complain that GPT-n is just applying patterns seen in the training corpus we should remember humans don't do much better. We are just language agents with rich feedback from outside. We can't even write software top-down in one go without running the code.

> patterns

Except we consciously (intentionally) work on those matchings.

> are

Opinions should be offered in proper places. Polling is not debating.

Incidentally, that opinion is also offensive. Not just some tossed "All X are Y, goodnight", but a loaded one.

If you happen to conjure thoughts and let them roam wildly, well don't. Make an effort. Critical thinking as a conscious intentional effort must have plenty of literature. The "feedforward" output, the hallucination, is not a dish for service.