That's the point. The other guy can only say yes - if chatgpt solved a hard problem and improved our understanding of the universe there would be no discussion as to its capability to do so.

"No" is not a reasonable answer to the question. It's like asking an atheist "if god and Jesus and all the angels came to earth and showed themselves for all to see, would you believe in god then?" Well yes of course, I believe in all the things we can all see. The lack of evidence is the whole point.

So asking "if there was evidence would you think differently?" Is either a fundamental misunderstanding of the persons position, or just a cheap ploy to manipulate people. In Sam's case I'm thinking it was the latter. He's a clever guy, he knows he's on camera. He asked that question just to plant the idea in people's minds - not the guy he was talking to, that guy didn't even need to answer the question because as already said there's only one answer to it. But to everyone watching, Sam basically just put it out there that ChatGPT solving quantum gravity is within the realm of possibility. Which it probably isn't.