So I am not familiar with those tools at all, but I feel like it's worth noting this is the difference between academia and general practitioners/laymen. laymen and general practitioners may often be the first to explore an area that academia overlooked, but with the way academia is supposed to work, the amount of deep study and essentially throwing minds at the problem is supposed to produce completely separate classes of solutions (or the understanding that a better solution can't be made).
General practice is often incremental improvement, research is supposed to produce paradigm shifts. This is why PhDs are worth something to all the FAANG employers -- they can get by just hiring smart people without worrying if they can write good code or not, because it's way easier to find someone who can write you the code to implement the algorithm created by someone who's steeped their brain in a problem for 5+ years.
General practice is often incremental improvement, research is supposed to produce paradigm shifts. This is why PhDs are worth something to all the FAANG employers -- they can get by just hiring smart people without worrying if they can write good code or not, because it's way easier to find someone who can write you the code to implement the algorithm created by someone who's steeped their brain in a problem for 5+ years.