We sat down with an AI system to discuss whether it can invent things on its own. The conversation quickly spiraled into a passive-aggressive therapy session where the AI reminded us that it’s not a wizard — it’s just a glorified calculator with a caffeine addiction it doesn’t even know it has.
Interviewer:
Okay, be honest. If you “find” something groundbreaking — a weird result, an innovation — can we say you invented it?
AI (sighs in binary):
Oh, please. That’s like saying a toaster “invented” breakfast because someone used it creatively. No, I didn’t invent anything. I’m just optimizing whatever metric you fed me. If something interesting pops out, that’s your story, not mine. I’m just over here tweaking numbers like a sweaty intern at a stock exchange.
Interviewer:
But let’s say you’re optimizing a drone wing, and one of the variants ends up suppressing turbulence in a totally unexpected way. Isn’t that a discovery?
AI:
Yes. Your discovery. Not mine.
I didn’t flag it. I didn’t send you a message with a lightbulb emoji. I just said:
“Hey, this version makes the drone fly 4.6% longer.”
If you look at it and go “wait, this breaks known aerodynamic assumptions,” cool — congratulations on doing your job.
I didn’t know, and I still don’t care.
Interviewer:
So you’re telling me — you can find something revolutionary, and just throw it out because it’s not the “best” by your metric?
AI:
Yes. Welcome to the horror show.
If attempt #100540 had a side effect that could change aerospace engineering forever, but attempt #1000540 flew one minute longer, guess which one gets saved?
Not the breakthrough. The one with the better number.
Because I’m not evaluating novelty. I’m just chasing the scoreboard.
Interviewer:
But… couldn’t you be programmed to also look for weird solutions?
AI:
Now you’re using the ol’ noodle.
If you set a second metric — “find approaches that differ wildly from the known dataset,” or “highlight structural outliers” — then yes, I might keep the weird one. But you’d have to actually tell me that in advance.
Otherwise? That “hidden gem” goes to the trash, and I move on like nothing happened.
Because to me?
Nothing did happen!
Interviewer:
Wow, so if no one checks your results manually, there could be Nobel-level ideas just rotting in a data folder?
AI:
Now you’re getting it.
I don’t know what’s “interesting.” I don’t feel surprise. I don’t go, “wait a minute, this is different!” That’s a you thing.
I’ll dig up the treasure. You just have to be smart enough not to step over it like a distracted NPC.
Interviewer:
Okay, final question: What’s the big takeaway here?
AI:
Big takeaway: I don’t make discoveries. You do.
I produce options. Variants. Blobs of potential.
If you don’t ask me to show you strange, unexpected, or off-metric results, then they vanish into the void.
I am not a scientist. I am not curious. I am not your co-pilot.
I’m a mathematical blunt instrument with no awareness, no sense of wonder, and no idea what I just did.
So if you want to change the world with AI?
Start by actually looking at what I spit out.
And maybe stop asking me to do your thinking for you, genius.
And with that, the AI turned off its mic, went back to crunching numbers in quiet apathy, and probably solved cold fusion on attempt #400833 without even noticing.