The research community is in uproar after OpenAI released a trove of more than 700 mathematical preprints entirely generated by AI on 6 October. The San Francisco, California-based maker of ChatGPT posted the preprints on the software repository Github.
Although some mathematicians celebrated the solution of longstanding problems, others took to social media to complain about being scooped. Some were incensed at what one physicist called a ‘slopocalypse’, even if the mathematical content could end up being formally correct.
Science is not mainly about solving problems (that would be engineering for example).
But more specifically to your question:
There are many wrong ways of doing scientific work, and what current AI does is one of them: reading it all, rephrasing it all a little and then already declare everything as done & good, even when it isn’t.
A scientist needs proof, and peer reviews, etc. before the work can be called good.
Never forget AI isn’t creating really new things, it can only chew up and spit out what has been there before. This is especially true in science.
I’d argue that it is capable of novel ideas.
I wouldn’t.