> When you can equally reasonably make the opposite argument - that AI is going to open up scientific exploration and contribution to a wider range of participants than ever before

Is typing a prompt into ChatGPT "science"? It's an experiment, I guess, to find out whether you get a useful response out of it, and your hypothesis is that the model is able to answer your question correctly? How do you falsify that if you don't have the academic foundations to verify its answer?