> You can (re-) derive a lot of existing stuff.

Einstein was aware of Lorentz and the transform. He was aware of Poincaré as well. He knew the state of the art for his time.

Re-deriving the start of the art cleanly with fewer postulates is good!

And so I'm skeptical of TFA's claim that "creativity _isn't [just]_ compression"

Imho there's also a clean argument against the existence of LLM-understanding: chatbots have been unable to summarize to experts (see my reply to you in the other thread) their own findings.

Even after prolonged interrogation. They were unable to _compress_ their own findings. Thus they might not actually understand what they have actually done. (They might barely pass an oral thesis defense)

(One may object-- that proofs aren't data that can be "compressed". But then doesn't the process of abduction generalise the very idea of data? to.. ?)

I'm not sure, many chat bots summarise just fine as far as I can tell, on subjects I know a lot about.

I observe this too. It's just on the breakthroughs chatbots independently achieved , ie stuff not in the training data..?

Note that there are some differences between the different breakthroughs. The ones that humans were close to solving already were better explained imho