Sure, and we here on Slashdot are criticising the silly article. And I'm criticising your silly repeating of the silly claim that polarization is not a quantum phenomenon because you can "explain" it (in a very narrow energy range if you squint and don't look too close) using classical physics. I probably wouldn't have replied at all if you hadn't told one of your other replies "it's okay if you don't understand quantum mechanics."

The actual paper doesn't use "first quantum material" at all. It says "first class of room-temperature quantum materials that are intrinsically sensitive to the quantum statistical properties defining all forms of light". They actually write it all out twice, which suggests to me that they were aware that shortening it to "quantum material" would sound ridiculous.

In fact, on casual reading it appears to be a fancy polarizing filter that's also sensitive to coherence.

It's pretty straightforward. Instead of simple counting on your fingers you treat your right thumb as a 5, your left fingers as 10s and your left thumb as a 50, which lets you count to ten on one hand or a hundred on both. It's fairly obvious once you understand digital notation, but you could also teach the concept using it, just like an abacus.

If you really wanted to get carried away you could treat your fingers as binary digits and count to 1024.

The systems aren't creative they're just really really fancy search engines that regurgitate what they have ingested.

Are we still saying this? These systems have solved a wide variety of open math problems some of which were borderline famous.

But what are the practical implications of that? Isn't it just as likely that those math problems haven't been solved because there was not any particularly good reason to solve them?

'Dem goal posts are a walking.

Sure, and we are looking for thing that cannot.

We are? We're talking about somebody using the term "quantum material", not looking for evidence supporting quantum physics.

Even so, you should be able to pretty easily notice deviations from Maxwell. It's a pain in the ass with film but pretty well any modern CCD or CMOS sensor should be able to detect shot noise from a double slit, crossed polarizer or just plain old light source experiment at tabletop scale. If not, add an ND filter.

'd be very careful about interpreting QM as "how it works".

Yeah, I didn't say that. It's pretty easy to show that both quantum mechanics and Maxwell are not how it works. Your claim that a polarizer is not a "quantum material" because you can explain it's behaviour with a classical theory (in very limited circumstances) really is assuming "that's how it works" though.

Or Slashdot will tell you you need 10 terabytes of the fastest VRAM and a few dozen of the very latest processors from Nvidia.

There it is!

You don't need any RAM at all. You can read each weight from an SSD, a hard drive or a stone tablet. If it's an SSD it's not necessarily "incredibly slow" if you're just playing around and aren't ready to spend fifty thousand dollars on your chatbot. There are benchmarks for running big models on Raspberry Pis for example.

The 50 B generally means you're going to be able to do things like hold most or all of the matrices in memory while you multiply them, which is usually a pretty big performance increase.

Convenience comes before the rare occasions when it's actually pleasurable to drive a standard day to day. I do not miss a clutch crawling along in traffic or cruising on the highway. And for the in-between bits my car has both a shift by wire stick and paddle shifters if I want to make vroom vroom noises and pretend I'm in F1.

Nah. Learn Chisanbop, Korean finger math, instead. An abacus you'll always have with you. Hopefully.

It depends what you want to do. Minimum requirement is something able to multiply numbers and with (probably) about 3 terabytes of storage space.

You're probably actually going to want something that can at least hold those 50 billion parameters in some sort of reasonably fast memory. That's probably about 50 GB.

Or Slashdot will tell you you need 10 terabytes of the fastest VRAM and a few dozen of the very latest processors from Nvidia.

Give it a bit though. Whenever an open weight model is released there's a very active community that boils it down to something almost as good in a lot smaller space.

I am talking about a standardized drop in compatible PACK, not the individual base cells.

Yes, and you pointed out yourself that nothing is really standardized like that across cars. When you go to your autoparts store and ask the guy for pretty much anything from transmission fluid to windshield wipers he asks you the make, model and year, then looks up the correct part because none of it is standardized.

Let me just go on rock auto and order a Tesla compatible battery pack - um nope.

https://greentecauto.ca/produc...

https://ingenext.ca/collection...

https://calimotive.com/product...

EV batteries can be made that way

They are. EV batteries are almost always assemblies of pretty standard cells, just like any other modern battery. The Tesla Model S and X use 18650s. That's the AA of the lithium ion world and is the same thing that's in those oh-so-proprietary power tool batteries, some laptops, battery banks, etc.

There's a burgeoning market of battery refurbishers who crack open old batteries and replace bad cells. Or you can just order a third party replacement, just like you can buy aftermarket brakes, tires, windshield wipers, whatever.

The game GPL is playing

There, you nailed it. And that game convinces people, the OP in particular, that something with fewer restrictions is "not free." Not "not as good" but specifically "not free."

This is precisely the same game that let Engels and Lenin convince everyone that a social system based on general anarchy plus a wee bit of democracy where absolutely required that was supposed to come about naturally ACTUALLY required authoritarianism and violent revolution because.

The OP claimed that the BSD license is "not free" and the GPL is.

Having freedom does not mean you can do anything you want.

Yes, it does. It's clearly impossible for everyone to be that free, so reality forces compromises, not redefinition. Not permitting something is not "more free."

You can explain a lot of things, in isolation, with classical physics. That doesn't mean that's how it works. The GP's comment is insightful: WTF is a "quantum material" if it's not literally everything?

What does the free project care about "the market?" What you mean is that the commercial project isn't forced to contribute back to the free one. I also don't like that idea, but claiming that forcing someone to do something they don't want to is "more free" is weird.