See "Plan A". That will never happen because it assumes the US govt. will make only wise, honest, and insightful decisions, but just try to come up with a better "Plan B" that doesn't start WWIII.

1) We keep changing the training methods.
2) We keep improving validation methods.
3) The evidence we've reached peak AI is, at the very best, shaky.
4) The best models at any time probably aren't public either in accessibility or even in knowledge that they exist.
5) John Henry may have driven deeper than the steam engine, but the steam engine drove deep enough. And the strain killed John Henry. You don't see many people driving steel pegs anymore.

etc.

There's no guarantee the the models will continue to be open weight.

Also, if it's actually done by distilling, it will be quite fragile outside the predetermined area. (But bet on harnesses to solve that problem.)

1) What do you mean "earth like"?
2) How do you know there isn't any life?

There's a problem there. Centralized power means a single entity is in control of that power. I don't think there's any way around that. If that single entity has an agenda, it will use that power to further the agenda. The only solution I can see is decentralization of power. That was what the tripartite government was supposed to achieve. It worked pretty well until the executive branch became too powerful. It's worked increasingly less well since FDR. But things are so complicated that the legislature has been giving the executive branch increasing power, and the courts have been acquiescent.

Trump is a symptom of a much more basic problem. Presidents have always abused their power, but it used to be a lot more limited. (Though look a Lincoln.)

That's a reasonable guess, but I bet the language was French or German, and there often are changes in meaning when one translates. (Even within the same language. Consider "Baby sitter" vs "nanny".)

OK. That's a specific use case that's hard to argue with. It didn't occur to me as I've never needed it...and I can't think of anything that it would be useful for that I either do or would like to do.

Sure, and we are looking for thing that cannot. The photoelectric effect would be an example, unlike polarisation. But its still not a "quantum material" in the sense of the original article.

I'd be very careful about interpreting QM as "how it works". QM is a mathematical model that makes very accurate predictions for real-world observations.

I wonder what "wearables" represents in the original language of the decision. That would make a big difference.

What do you use an oura ring for?
(Since you've bought an upgrade, you must have some uses...but I couldn't think of any, so I never considered buying one.)

Can you? In my experience rechargeable batteries tend to have a lower voltage and slightly larger size/stored power than well designed single use batteries. Once you get to hearing aid size this may be significant. (OTOH, my experience of the comparison is about two decades old.)

Useless? To whom? This is being run by the government. It will provide the advice the government desires it to provide. It will collect the information the government chooses to collect.

In principle this could lead to an ideal outcome, but that presumes that all controlling parties have consistent good will and excellent foresight. Not something I expect of any entity.

Descartes started off looking for his axioms. He settled on "I think therefore I am", but if you believe that was his only axiom, you reasoning is faulty. That, by itself, can't justify choosing between solipism and predeterminism, never mind the other possibilities.

I don't know enough about Kant to be able to specifically refute your assertion that he's an example, but since I'm already disagreeing with Descartes I suppose I may also be disagreeing with Kant. I'm NOT disagreeing with Euclid, and anyone who does had better be able to explain why if they want me to take them seriously.

To be more accurate, it is neither a particle nor a wave, even though we may find it useful in certain circumstances to think of it as one or the other.
A quantum object is its own thing, a "quanton" . right? But what is real? The wave function? The measurement?

EVERYONE "just use their mental skills to justify whatever conclusions they arrived at NOT using these skills".

You can't reason without starting from axioms accepted for some other reason. And nobody really knows what their axioms are. This is all a matter of degrees. Some people's conscious thoughts are more consistent than others...and that's about as far as you can justify. (But I tend to think more highly of those that agree with me.)