Chuck Nice asks what happens when science hands its grunt work to computers. Neil deGrasse Tyson reaches back: there used to be a whole graduate course in spherical trigonometry — the math for pointing a telescope across the dome of the sky.
And Tyson never took it. The course was dropped about two years before he got there. Today you push a button, and the telescope does the calculation. Nobody calls him less of an astrophysicist for it.
It is the guest, astrophysicist Matt O'Dowd, who raises the harder question: are there intuitions we are missing now? And he gives the honest answer out loud — we don't know what we lose.
Then Tyson offers the counter-story on himself: classifying hundreds of galaxies by hand — repetitive work that became, in his words, almost a muscle memory. He can still feel that class in how he sees the sky.
The exchange does not prove that every old procedure should survive. It does something more useful: it leaves the tradeoff open. A machine can remove labor we no longer need, and the same labor may have been building a form of noticing we did not know how to name.
The responsible question is not whether the computer made a mistake. It is whether we understood the human capacity before we stopped practicing the process.