In science, having ideas is not the limiting factor. They're just automating the wrong thing. I want to have ideas and ask the machine to test for me, not the other way around.
The difference is the complexity of ideas. There are straightforward ideas anyone can test and improve, and there are ideas where only PhDs in CERN can test
If I understand what's been published about this, it isn't just ideation, but also critiquing and ranking them, to select the few most worth pursuing.
Choosing a hypothesis to test is actually a hard problem, and one that a lot of humans do poorly, with significant impact on their subsequent career. From what I have seen as an outsider to academia, many of the people who choose good hypotheses for their dissertation describe it as having been lucky.