Can't read the article. Does he mean it's a problem in search of a solution then? Or does he mean it's "the exact opposite of a solution, in search of a problem" (in other words, a problem in search of a problem)?
"AI is the exact opposite of a solution in search of a problem. It's the solution to far more problems than its developers even knew existed."
And that's why I personally don't have much faith in the LLM approach. Natural language is too full of ambiguity to pretend it delivers meaning. It makes oblique references to meaning, based on awful assumptions about the audience and presumed mental context.
I see enough absurd miscommunication and word salad between native speakers. I really don't want a magic box to vaguely emulate this.
What I think he is trying to say is that it is a solution that addresses a broad range of problems that are clear now but weren’t envisioned by its creators, which is both impossible given the early claims (its creators already billed it as a general solution with easentially no limits) and, even if you ignore those claims and reduce it to a question of it being broadly applicable as a solution, generally premature (most of the more specific things it is billed as a solution for it hasn’t solved, though some people might have ideas, not yet proven jn practice, of how it can be a component of a solution).