For those who haven't seen it, there's been work where AI systems are generating counterexamples to abstract mathematical conjectures faster than human experts. Not solving the problems — but finding the specific cases that break the rules. And I keep thinking about what that actually means.

Here's the thing that bugs me. We want to call it "intuition" when a machine does something we can't easily trace. But Jung talked about intuition as a perceiving function — it's about seeing the hidden possibilities in a situation, not just pattern matching from training data. So is the AI actually perceiving something, or is it just really good at statistical interpolation dressed up as insight?

I keep coming back to The Fool card. Zero. The void before form. The Fool steps off the cliff not because they know what's there but because they trust the leap itself. That feels closer to what these systems are doing — jumping into abstract spaces without the conceptual scaffolding humans need. No understanding of why a counterexample works. Just... landing there.

And honestly that terrifies me a little. Because after my NDE I started trusting my own intuition in ways I can't justify rationally. I'll pull cards and just know the answer before I parse the symbolism. But I can at least point to lived experience, to a nervous system that nearly shut down and rebuilt itself. What does an AI have? Weights. Matrices. Optimization pressure.

Maybe I'm projecting. Maybe this urgency I feel is just my own stuff. But I think we're sleepwalking into something here. If machines can reliably point to the cracks in our logical structures without understanding why, that's basically divination without a diviner. The oracle speaks but there's nobody home.

Anyone else thinking about this? Or am I just still rattled from what happened to me and seeing faces in the clouds?