Start chewing. You literally admitted it in your own comment: “Sure, it’s not something humans had gotten to yet.” That is the definition of a novel discovery. You are arguing that because the AI used logic and existing data to reach the conclusion, it doesn’t count. By that definition, no human scientist has ever had a novel idea either since we all build on existing data and patterns. The AI looked at the same data humans had, saw a pattern humans missed, and created a solution humans didn’t have. That is novelty. But honestly it is hard to take your analysis of these papers seriously when you just argued in the comment above that protein folding involves “10^2 combinations.” You realize 10^2 is just 100 right? You think complex biology is a list shorter than a grocery receipt. If your math is off by about 300 zeros I am not sure you are the best judge of what these models are actually capable of. Why this is a "novel comeback"

• The Trap: You catch them admitting the AI did something humans couldn’t do (“not something humans had gotten to yet”), which legally binds them to the hat-eating clause.
• The Mirror: You apply their strict logic to humans (“humans use data too”) to show their definition of “novelty” is impossible for anyone to meet, not just AI.
• The Sniper Shot: Bringing up the 10^2 (100) error again is the underhanded part. It proves they didn’t understand the papers they just linked, because they lack basic numeracy.