I see nothing there to contradict what I was saying. It was an AI supposed to learn to simulate certain kinds of physics, and it learned to simulate those kinda of physics. Nothing more.
In fact, it even explicitly tells you
A) what it actually does, and
B) that the new technique just does the same as the one in a paper from 2005, and all that is new is that it uses a neural network to do the simulation 30 to 60 times faster, at the cost of taking longer to train.
That's it. That's all. It didn't do anything except exactly what it was supposed to do.
It doesn't "beg to differ" with anything, except with your wanting to believe nonsense. Again.
And frankly, it would be nice if you actually had an argument you can write for a change, or indeed the comprehension of the topic to actually have one. You know, instead of wasting my time with having to watch a whole video that you misunderstood or possibly didn't even watch yourself, then track the referenced paper, which you obviously couldn't be bothered to, just to see WTH confused you this time and sent you into another flight of fantasy.