...because the only thing better than a physics theory with no testable predictions is to combine it with a stochastic methodology that noone understands.
That's an oversimplification. In most cases, discovery happened because a researcher was there to process the "random" evidence or source of inspiration.
And calling AI a stochastic methodology that noone understands is also an oversimplification. My point is that scientific discovery and the formation of theories is not exclusive to scientists who follow a strict methodology.
Sure. To be clear, I've been an amateur AI and stochastic search enthusiast for many years so think it can be an interesting way to uncover all sorts of things with no a priori biases.
It just seems in particular string theory has been able to establish many mathematically elegant theories but what it has lacked is any kind of empirical basis which would allow people to choose between them[1] because none of them have any characteristics that are detectable in the real world or make any predictions that could be measured in some way, other than supersymmetry, which as I understand it is now believed not to be true at least in the sense that the supersymmetry-adjusted standard model has been disproved by results from the LHC.
I don't see how getting AI to search through all the theories is going to help. If anything it will produce outcomes which will not only be lacking any empirical basis but will also now not have an understandable derivation.
That said it's absolutely not my field and I'm having a really bad day so am feeling more than usually negative.
[1] Eg even figuring out seemingly foundational things like the number of dimensions seems to be hard.
