Dwarkesh Patel's thread didn't attack the AI-science thesis directly — it illustrated a problem with it by recounting how Kepler actually worked . The setup is important: Patel frames Kepler's method as "absolutely ingenious and surprising," which is not a dismissal of AI but a complication of the acceleration argument. If the paradigmatic example of transformative scientific discovery required years of unverifiable reasoning guided by aesthetic conviction rather than fast feedback loops, then the argument that AI will make science faster because it can verify outputs quickly is only valid…