More often than not, far, far, far more often than not, we do not already know that it will work. For all human endeavors, from the beginning of time.

If we get to any sort of confidence it will work it is based on building a history of it, or things related to "it" working consistently over time, out of innumerable other efforts where other "it"s did not work.

That's just not true at all. There are entire fields that rest pretty heavily on brute force search. Entire theses in biomedical and materials science have been written to the effect of "I ran these tests on this compound, and these are the results", without necessarily any underlying theory more than a hope that it'll yield something useful.

As for advances where there is a hypothesis, it rests on the shoulders of those who've come before. You know from observations that putting carbon in iron makes it stronger, and then someone else comes along with a theory of atoms and molecules. You might apply that to figuring out why steel is stronger than iron, and your student takes that and invents a new superalloy with improvements to your model. Remixing is a fundamental part of innovation, because it often teaches you something new. We aren't just alchemying things out of nothing.

AI can one shot problems too, if they have the necessary tools in their training data, or have the right thing in context, or have access to tools to search relevant data. Not all AI solutions are iterative, trial and error.

Also

> humans are a lot better at (...)

That's maybe true in 2026, but it's hard to make statements about "AI" in a field that is advancing so quickly. For most of 2025 for example, AI doing math like this wouldn't even be possible