Especially when you consider the artificial impressive high school sophomore is capable of having impressive high school sophomore ideas across and between an incredibly broad spectrum of domains.

And that their generation of impressive high school sophomore ideas is faster, more reliable, communicated better, and can continue 24/7 (given matching collaboration), relative to their bio high school sophomore counterparts.

I don’t believe any natural high school sophomore as impressive on those terms, has ever existed. Not close.

We humans (I include myself) are awful at judging things or people accurately (in even a loose sense) across more than one or two dimensions.

This is especially true when the mix of ability across several dimensions is novel.

(I also think people under estimate the degree that we, as users and “commanders” of AI, bottleneck their potential. I don’t suggest they are ready to operate without us. But that our relative lack of energy, persistence & focus all limit what we get from them in those dimensions, hiding significant value.

We famously do this with each other, so not surprising. But worth keeping in mind when judging limits: whose limits are we really seeing.)

Suggesting "maybe try this known inhibitor in other cell lines" isn't exactly novel information though. It'd be more impressive and useful if it hadn't had any published information about working as a cancer inhibitor before. People are blasé about it because it's not really beating the allegations that it's just a very fancy parrot when the highlight of it's achievements is to say try this known inhibitor with these other cell lines, decent odds that the future work sections of papers on the drug already suggested trying on other lines too...

Most people here know little to nothing of biomedical research. Explaining clearly why this isn’t a scientifically interesting result is helpful.

Sure, but is it more impressive than books?