In my experience, this is exactly how language models solve hard new problems, and largely how I solve them too. Propose a new idea, see if it works, iterate if not, keep going until it works.

Of course you can see how to solve a problem that you've seen before, like a visual puzzle about balanced parentheses. We're hyper specialized to visually identify asymmetries. LMs don't have eyes. Your mockery proves nothing.

What is a "boat"?

We do the same thing to plants. Why do you have no qualms about killing plants to eat the food they accumulated for their young?

A grain of wheat and a chicken egg are evolutionarily and nutritionally, maybe even ontologically, indistinguishable from one another.

The past 4 billion years of life for prey animals has been "get born, eat, get eaten by a predator." They have never experienced any other environment. Why do we owe them a different one?

How do we communicate this to the engineers at YouTube who refuse to make an offramp for children from the infinite baby shark AI video loop?

I know it was not your intent, but when people hear this stuff about the fragility of EVs, it really makes them feel safer with a gas motor and a tank of liquid that can take a few dents and whacks without completely exploding.

I built almost exactly the same size pack (2 kWH) as Jacques in 2020 on a hybrid road bike and hated it so much that I only rode it 20 times or so. The battery still sits in the corner of my house doing nothing.