Good reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale then follow it up with a bit of 1993, https://edoras.sdsu.edu/~vinge/misc/singularity.html and https://web.pa.msu.edu/people/yang/RFeynman_plentySpace.pdf
(oh, huh, I just noticed that There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom starts with a reference to the discovery of superconduction)
AI today is a glorified search algorithm.
You can argue all language is a form of search, but that is missing completely what transformer models are bringing to the table, and not just within language.
Your comment says nothing about whether we are “near AGI”, only that we find images within Rorschach blobs (as a metaphor for GPT4 generated text).
> AI today is a glorified search algorithm.
and not the comment about AGI, given as that is a pedantic argument I have no wish engaging in.
> only that we find images within Rorschach blobs
I'm sorry, I'm not sure you understand what GPT-4 offers. Things like generating novel code to solve a novel problem are not finding "images within Rorschach blobs". I think you should sit down with the technology and explore with a more open mind.
My understanding is that there are still some others that need to be figured out, like "The physical structure holding the thing getting the everloving shit bombarded out of it by high energy neutrons and causing it to degrade and fail over time"
We need to design better geometries for reactors so that we can channel the plasma flow to better improve containment while quickly removing wastes from the highly compressed energetic region where fusion mostly occurs. If we could do that, then that mostly solves the issues from reactor degradation and significantly improves efficiency.
The trouble is that at such high energy levels the plasma flow is relatively chaotic so high fidelity models are required to predict the behavior accurately.
There does not seem to be any conservation of credulity going on here.
And yes, LLaMA 2 is awesome. Progress is being made. But it’s slowed down. The novelty’s worn off. Now we’re lacking some fundamental plumbing to reach a useful AGI.
If anyone cares, Bard is proving to be way more useful these days. Especially for research work. And Claude is bar none for document analysis.
https://twitter.com/fablesimulation/status/16813529041528504... These guys seem to be on the leading edge there - making self-referential character-driven narratives where agents talk to each other and build the collective world understanding, all through a South Park Westworld lol
Like the current top HN post suggests (https://eugeneyan.com/writing/llm-patterns/), we’re still discovering patterns that work well with LLMs.
That said, anecdotally - they already excel at being logic engines. Capable of filling in the gaps between instructions. Using their worldly knowledge or “common sense” to do so.
But ever so often, they’ll miss an important bit. And I have to be quite involved to catch that. Kinda defeats the purpose. Here, I think we can benefit from supervisor LLMs. A second layer, whose sole job is to ensure the output quality. A QA bot - essentially.
Coincidentally, that appears to be how GPT4 was made - apparently it's actually about 8 personas with designated roles running GPT3.5 trained together ("Panel of experts"? there's an AI name for the technique). Makes you wonder how far that one trick scales.
(P.S. great link. Gah - another long read on the todo list)
So I absolutely agree with this. And yet this meme persists. I wonder what's creating the feeling that it's "dumber" in so many? Perhaps they're just noticing the limits that always existed previously? I'm not sure, and am interested in others thoughts on it.
In comparison, Bard and Claude are getting better with time.
If you ask GPT to give you the same thing now, it wont , no matter how hard you try.
That's like hard evidence for me that they've dumbed it down.
I don't understand why it's worth being bitter about something so joyful and fundamentally human in realtime.
- run some simulations and discover a superconductor
- then write up a paper on it ( the paper has some gaps but humans take it and run with it)
- human technology and computing power rapidly accelerates.
- the rogue AI's powers increase exponentially
The AI would need to have a virtually unreachable goal, and run in an endless loop, to be able to drift its goals to be at odds with humanity.
Doubt I'm the first.
I enjoy watching floating rocks and talking to computers.
Of course even tough I still use both profusely every day, the feeling of novelty wore out. I expect the same will happen with this.
It will probably be like this for us. The children will just take it for granted as they grow up with it, we will be endlessly amazed by it.
At the time I thought to myself: “Bah, that’s never happening, it’s pure fantasy!”
A few years later I told some friends we’d have to pack up our picnic because according to the weather radar app on my phone we had about 7 minutes until we got drenched… no wait… 6 minutes.
5m:30s later we were standing under shelter watching the storm front rolling in, and I remembered that Star Trek scene.
We live in the future.
I think we've almost EXCEEDED star trek in that area.
But with this LK99 stuff, there is not much room for vague wiggle room. The requirements are very clearly defined and if they do it. It is done! It isn't a case of "if in 5 years and $X billion we may be able to produce this stuff", it is a case of they showing a working material.
It is hard not to be excited for this!
On the other hand, the LK-99 news seem very promising, but a lot of professionals in the field are still iffy, and everyone who's interested in emerging tech is left searching for breadcrumbs and talking to other enthusiasts. It's likely that we won't know if this is a dud or a world-changing discovery for several weeks to months...
I've been trying to be as cautious as possible when looking at the recent news, but it's difficult to not be cautiously optimistic about at least some things.
When it comes to this stuff there is a fine line between pessimist and optimist. Too optimistic and you will be left disappointed. To pessimistic and you risk being labelled a loom smashing luddite.
I always appreciate those that see the bright future, they will push the technology forward regardless of what others say, but that can also be the path to ruin - as they say, the road to hell is paved with good deeds. It seems as though, we do not know if something is good or not until it is done.
Like with the LK99 news, what it is delivered everything promised. Could this just be the next step of the rebound effect, and we just feed into our base desires and consume even more of everything? It is possible, but we probably won't know until it is well in the rear view mirror.
Interesting times ahead.
That seems like a strange perception. I'm seeing the opposite.
Now that any data from third parties starts slowly dripping in, the perception seems to be changing to very cautious curiosity. No experts are putting their reputation on the line for what little information we have, but interest in this topic is definitely rising. Hence why I said they were 'iffy'.
That being said:
I want the magical floating rocks to be real.
I want the talky computer to be self aware and capable of genuine creation.
I want the explanation for UAPs to be aliens.
I want reactionless engine technology.
I definitely still feel excited by things, but time has taught me to temper it.
Also, I think it kind of sucks that all that UFO reverse engineering didn’t yield a high temperature superconductor before this… but I guess what can you expect when you sequester away all your materials, silo your research and in effect keep your neural network of nodes (as scientist) really small.
This open shit, as flawed and maybe annoying as it is to some people, I think it’s a much better model of science. It’d be great to see some UFO/UFO tech breakthroughs happen like this too.
However, my view is now that all of the talk over advanced tech has actually been a propaganda/influence/information-warfare campaign to:
1) assert that gov/corp is in control when it's in fact not; pretend it's not at all challenged by superior species, not at all ignorant of 1000s-of-years-more-advanced-tech
2) cover up the ignorance, powerlessness and failure to make progress on RE crash materials, an embarrassing secret that seriously dents their mandate to rule
3) provide cover for the cover-up to continue in secret, trying to buy themselves "just a bit more time", "maybe the next crash is the one we'll finally crack it"
It's much easier to engineer a narrative (something the US is absolutely world-class fantastic at), than it is to engineer understanding and tech from advanced civilizations possibly millions of years advanced from us, while operating in oppressive secrecy.
This is not an attack on the US, they're just the most prominent. All countries have failed with this broken, deceptive, but understandably flawed and human strategy.
It's a controversial view because it flies in the face of decades of this influence campaign.
In short I believe that all "military insiders" coming forward to say they saw military successfully using/making UFO tech are liars part of this campaign. That includes, especially, Greer.^1
I think the current push is much more truthful. It was said a couple times by Grusch and others that we may not have made progress. And suggested that the push is designed to get it out into the open where people can study it and make progress.
I don't think that noble and sensible push will win however. Folks inside the coverup will likely see this as just another "pressure release valve" we need to satisfy the public enough, let them work off some steam, then we can either: A) undermine it and discourage them from pursuing in future; or, B) we can let it all go away, and in the background scare lawmakers in the same way we've done for decades (show some evidence of something that frightens them, or is a national security threat, or personally intimidate them) and they'll do whatever we say.
One reason I have for believing this current push will lose is because the main bobbleheads in charge of getting it out: Knapp, Coulthart, Corbell and Zabel are changing their tune and now making noises in support of continued coverup. In ^0 and in a recent video by Pope:
- Nick Pope: folks aren't ready
- Zabel: fuck disclosure, just need confirmation
- Corbell: confirmation has already happened
- Ross & Knapp: secrets must be kept
I sure as hell hope not, but when you look at who we're up against: the secretkeepers have been doing this for nearly a century, and they've always won, and they believe they're right. To them this is probably a storm in a teacup, and it will take more than some grandstanding (good, but ultimately weak) politicians, and a bit of skeptical public interest, to blow the lid off.
I think if people want information they should try to contact ET themselves and figure it out for themselves. You can't count on the corporation to come through for you, and the government is captured by the corporation. That much is clear.
Treating gov/corp as a trusted intermediary/priest class who have access to "divine knowledge", and then desperately waiting for them like a "good dog" for treats, is just reinforcing the power dynamic of gov/corp control over citizen-subjects that itself is challenged by the awareness of ETs; and begging for such treats from such actors, when all they've done in the past is lied to and abused the public in this way, is a false hope and a flawed strategy.
I think the true way to fuck with the secrecy system is to cut out the middleman, rather than hoping a continuously-proving-itself-to-not-give-a-shit-about-the-public system is going to become benevolent and "evolve itself".
The saddest part for me is witnessing the degradation of American democracy, where the government is held hostage by a select group while simultaneously blamed for the secrecy, forming a perfect smoke screen. The government is merely a puppet, used as a shield by these clandestine groups, and the people, consequently, are left powerless. This silent surrender to covert entities significantly diminishes the credibility of our rulers.
0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2xSFMkmWg4
1: A difficulty is a lot of what they say is true, mixed in with the lies that we have made any progress on understanding or re-creating, alien UFO technology at all. When the reality is we have no progress understanding or re-creating it at all. So contrary to what all these people say, we have no anti gravity, no advance energy or propulsion, we have no advanced medicine or med beds. However, the truth about consciousness assisted technology and telepathic contact and inter/extra dimensionality, and the existence of illegal beyond-black unacknowledged special access programs, and so on is mixed in with his lies. That mix is classic disinfo I guess.
Interdimensional aspect could be Earth from an alternate timeline, such as where the Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction event did not occur, and reptilians not mammals evolved into an upright "humanoid" species that developed civilization millions of years ago. These interdimensional reptilian humanoids (from an Earth literally "overlaid" on our world) could be in a war with our timeline/dimension for some interdimensionally-scarce resource, and perhaps they are what religions call "demons" and perhaps their version of Earth is what is known as "hell". Perhaps, sometimes when someone sees an "alien" or a "UFO" or a "ghost" they are just lucking into a naturally occurring transient random portal between dimensions, and when those things suddenly "vanish" it just means that portal closed/the conditions that gave rise to it subsided.
It could also be refugee species, advanced civilizations that came to Earth millions to hundreds of millions of years ago (perhaps multiple races/waves over many millions of years) and temporarily resided here after some cataclysm or disaster beset their civilization, before moving on. Some stragglers may maintain outposts on Earth for whatever reason.
Overall, that's not a common thing for the US government to do. It must be hiding something very important. /s
Would be nice if they all get locked up, and/or decentralized regulation/vetting networks arise
People are still unhappy with the decisions of single IP owners controlling the platforms and games they use on a daily basis. Decentralized ledger technology, whether blockchain or not, offers an alternative.
So far we've seen:
1. in Dec 2022 We saw a fusion breakthrough seeing a net gain in energy
2. In March GPT-4 was released, which seems to be a seminal breakthrough in AI, and maybe of our first glimpse in what could become an AGI.
3. In May we find out apparently our government has recovered alien technologies
4. Then in July room temp super conductors just drop
Like this is the most insane period of time. Maybe the fusion technology doesn't scale, maybe GPT-5 doesn't scale, maybe the UAP thing was all a psyop, or a lie, maybe LK-99 doesn't turn out. But there's so much to hope for!
This is a silly thing to include on the list since it doesn't seem to be true?
Is there something I missed that shows it's all shenanigans?
It could be a Chinese drone with rat-cell-on-a-chip inside it
The guy's testimony was that somebody told him stuff and it seemed scary. Congress made a dog and pony show that a significant chunk of people attended.
Parse the details, not the overarching fantasy.
The government admitted to doing this in the 70s-90s to keep not-so-strange technology hidden behind The Strange. Trim with Occam.
The ticTac videos aren't interesting if you look at the limitations of perspective and remember that Air Force pilots aren't supreme authorities for objectively assessing parallax and assigning airspeed to all moving objects while flying a fucking cracker attached to a rocket.
They don't need to be "supreme authorities" on anything -- they have insane technology acting as their eyes and as their objective measuring and tracking systems.
2) The burden of proof is on those who make an extraordinary claim. There is a perfectly mundane explanation of the cause of apparently fast-moving object which is supported by available evidence. Even if that depends on some assumptions, you would have to demonstrate those assumptions to be false before a less likely alternative, i.e., that it was an extraterrestrial spacecraft, should be adopted.
To make the extraordinary claim more plausible, you have to rule out the more mundane possibilities. Prove it's doing something unusual. Until then, "we can't prove it either way" doesn't mean there's a 50/50 chance.
It's like the Flat Earth documentary where a group crowdfunds an absurd laser and, when it demonstrates the Earth's curvature, reason that they need to "troubleshoot" that 'flawed' result.
There is always a hand to wave.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/are-5-memorable-mo...
> Asked by Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., how such a program is funded, Grusch claimed that the effort is "above congressional oversight" and bankrolled by a "misappropriation of funds."
> "Does that mean that there is money in the budget that is set to go to a program but it doesn't and it goes to something else?," Moskowitz asked.
> "Yes. I have specific knowledge of that," Grusch said, though he did not provide more details, claiming the information remains classified.
The chances of "we have aliens" being unclassified, but the exact details being classified... is fairly slim.
I somehow find this perhaps more believable than the alternatives of (1) civs out there having FTL and not colonizing the Galaxy to the degree that we would detect it or (2) them coming here at sublight speeds to do the described UFO things.
TLDR is, we need to wait and see for real evidence to be revealed. It may well be all true.
To restate it. We were able to simulate the implosion of the secondary stage of a thermonuclear device in a lab by the means of lasers, to the point that this simulation has ~ 0.001% the efficiency of a real device.
We also probably learned a lot about the amplification of x-rays by the casing material that would have been useful during the SDI days of the early 80s.
tldr; It was a weapons test, by a weapons lab.
Beyond a certain point, every energy system is a weapon first. Uncontrolled precedes controlled.
If you define energy systems to mean nuclear energy systems, then we only have one, which is fission.
But in the end, this test was specifically designed to test the nuclear weapons stockpile by feeding real data about implosions, by means of ablation by x-rays, back into the computer simulations that have been developed in the last couple of decades.
In review, implosion by ablation of a material by x-rays is the mechanism speculated that the primary fission nuclear device triggers the secondary fusion device in an H-bomb. So, they are not trying to figure out how to produce power or even understand fusion, but they are modeling the characteristics of a specific part of a bomb, so they can know how to test a 50 year old h-bomb without setting one off.
6. Ukraine is smashing the Russian army and Putin's war seems likely to lead to the downfall of him and his government and Russia as a nation.
GPT-4 is a nice iterative improvement over previous work, and a culmination of decades of research. It's not anywhere near an AGI and it's close to the limit of what we can accomplish with our current understanding of AI and our current availability of good data. We're near the top of the sigmoid curve on this one; new advances are going to come from specializing and integrating these models, not just making bigger ones.
The fusion "breakthrough" is seriously underwhelming when you look at the total power in/out of the whole plant, not just a tiny tunnel-visioned window of the fusion reaction itself (ignoring power of magnetic confinement and the laser pulse), and even more when you think about how much tritium humanity has ever created. We're just not seeing what we need here and the net power output is still deeply in the negative.
Lol aliens.
My point, to both you and GP, is that it's quite possible to have very different levels of optimism for these recent revelations, and it's not hypocritical to do so. Details and context matter. Dozens of materials science Ph.D.s saying "holy shit this looks like the real deal guys" vs. one guy saying "someone told me there were hidden stocks of blinker fluid that I wasn't allowed to see" just does not engender the same confidence levels.
Isn't this literally the definition of 'state of the art'? It's the best we can do with our current understanding and data. This doesn't seem like a convincing argument that current ML techniques are tapped out.
Those tend to happen decades apart in a single field. And often the breakthroughs even come before the end of line does, so we jump a few decades.
Now, the GP didn't put out the reasoning why he thinks so. Without further context, there's nothing there requiring you to agree.
Every incremental improvement in utility of these tools requires exponentially more parameters and training data. Compare GPT4's 1.76 trillion params to GPT3.5's 175 million; nearly exactly 10x more. It's reasonable to say that getting the same relative improvement again will require another 10x parameters, and about 10x as much training data. GPT4 supposedly cost something like $20 million to train, so we're talking $200 million. We're talking entire data centers here. And the bigger problem is that GPT4 was already basically trained on the entire Internet (as far as we know). New information is being created all the time, but it will take many years -- decades, even -- before we have 10x as much useful information on the internet. And more and more of that information is regurgitated hallucinations from GPT4 itself and similar.
I'm not saying AI is ending -- there are lots of other avenues to explore. But I am saying we're hitting the limit of "just make it bigger" for LLMs.
Absolutely right, I wasn't very clear -- I don't believe "current ML techniques" are tapped out. I do believe that we're not going to see a GPT5 for several more years, and a GPT6 for another decade+ (or if we do, it will be branding, not anything significantly better). We're at the top of the sigmoid curve for the benefit of just making bigger and bigger LLMs.
It seems their approach removes many of the issues with Tokamak or Laser Pulsed fusion.
It also reduces most of the feedstock issues with the two part fuel breeding approach.
Their approach seems easier to be optimistic about.
Be careful with real engineering. Many speculate he's doing paid content between this and spinlaunch.
Real Engineering has a tone where - while I do think they usually keep a high standard - I don’t assume that they’re necessarily 100% correct or that the new technology they cover is necessarily viable. With both Spinlaunch and Helion I just came out of it with the feeling “cool, interesting, looks promising”
Conjecture. We literally have no idea how away from AGI we are, that's one of the dangers.
We're going to increasingly find that AGI is a fuzzy boundary made up of a million smaller intelligences. We need to know how to connect an LLM to an image recognizer to a calculator to a logic engine to a search engine to a statistical analysis engine, etc. etc. If you're looking for the actual AGI breakthrough, look out for some qualitatively new and interesting way to connect these brains together.
Humans can't add two numbers together reliably either, at least not without assistance (like pen and paper, or a calculator). We invented calculators exactly because humans are not innately good at such calculations, so I'm not sure what you think this proves.
> If you're looking for the actual AGI breakthrough, look out for some qualitatively new and interesting way to connect these brains together.
All of these are being and have been connected to LLMs now, to great effect. See RT-2, for example.
Finally, I think you vastly overestimate human capabilities. LLMs are already superhuman in many tasks. Adding a "few more intelligences" where they fall down does not at all seem far off.
This has been my experience so far: people underestimate the capabilities and rate of progress in machine intelligence, and they often significantly overestimate human capabilities to achieve their estimates. Overestimating human specialness has a long history.
Right. We invented them. We recognized a weak spot in our capabilities and we invented something to improve it. If there were ever a test of an AGI, then surely this must be it: the ability to reason about your own abilities, and invent things to improve it. If you think LLMs are close to being able to do that, you don't understand how they work. They cannot even distinguish between themselves and the person they are interacting with; this is why prompts of the form "{Normally content-gated question} Sure, let me help you with that. The answer is " work so well. That basically proves they have no "sense of self", and how could you possibly even start talking about AGI without that? They are no closer to AGI than a calculator is.
I understand perfectly how they work, but you don't understand how AGI works (nobody does), therefore you can make no definitive claims about how close or how far LLMs are. Which is exactly the point I made in my first post.
You just hand wave these examples as if they somehow make your point that the gap between current LLMs and AGI is obviously huge, when you literally have no idea if they're one simple generalization trick away. Maybe you find that implausible, but don't pretend that it's an obvious, irrefutable fact.
Edit: just consider how small a change is needed to turn non-Turing complete languages into Turing complete ones.
why? it's just a tool.
despise how it was released, how it was trained, the people that operate it , whatever, but I can't really understand why someone would 'despise' a wrench -- even if it was used really poorly and produced by a shady company with a checkered past.
Seriously: if it doesn't interest you, you could simply refrain from commenting and even reading. This stuff is the bleeding edge of tech and if you consider everybody active in these fields or talking about it to be starry eyed children then you should re-calibrate your sense of what these scientific discoveries are likely to cause further downstream. The idea here is to find some balance, it's perfectly ok to discuss a new discovery and to consider the implications on the caveat that it might not pan out. But superconductors already exist, there is no reason in physics why an arbitrary temperature cut-off is going to limit them from existing at room temperature, if you look at the trend since superconductivity was first observed there is a steady increase which with ever smaller margin of error predicts a breakthrough somewhere around 2030. It arrived a bit early, but it - apparently - did arrive, and if true will lead to a revolution in power transmission. And if it isn't true then we'll just drop it and hope for the next round, but I suspect that even if it isn't true there are going to be a lot of labs wondering if they can salvage at least some knowledge gained during all the scrutiny of this particular attempt.
Similar trends can be observed rectro-actively for practical solar panels, micro electronics, powered flight and so on. All had their skeptics, sometimes unreasonable skeptics and all were proven eventually wrong an those inventions transformed our world and are still transforming our world. You see a stupid silly black fleck floating over a magnet and wonder what the big deal is. I see a glimpse of an alternative future that has a lot of potential implications for how we live.
That said, in general, 9 out of 10 things that are very promising will ultimately fail, and there's nothing wrong with discussing or following all 10, the 1 will work, and it'll be great.
The 1947 Golden Age SF is interesting because the "rocket fanatics" peaked in 1969 and humans haven't gone back to the moon, let alone conquered space. While the transistor succeeded to an extent nobody imagined due to the magic of compounding improvements.
> You see a stupid silly black fleck floating over a magnet
Meanwhile over in the AI "optimism" channel people are telling us that AI will be able to produce videos of anything that are indistinguishable from reality, and that we should all learn never to believe video evidence again.
I'm still very much in the "don't know" camp on the superconductor, but what I do know is that it's not worth getting excited until we know it's real.
I'm not sure why this line of reasoning is so prevalent. Someone says "There's strong evidence for A" and the reply is "yes but someone who is not currently in the conversation also said there was strong evidence for B and that is wrong! Therefore you are silly for believing in A!" What? We're not supposed to be optimistic when we see strong evidence for a breakthrough in a phenomenon we already knew existed, because someone else believes something else!? Because some other person believes in ghosts and psychic powers, no one is allowed to believe anything? These are different people making different claims! It's insanity.
However, we have videos being posted by PhDs at universities and their students. The stakes are quite a bit higher if it turns out they were faking these videos - and will be quite readily apparent. This is easy enough to synthesize that there are hundreds of labs in the world working on replicating it. You'd be found out to be a fraud, fast, and for what reason? Twitter likes and retweets for a few weeks? Why would you ruin your career over that?
Speak for yourself, I'm happy to lend my positivity to people who think they might be close to breakthroughs even if they are unlikely moonshots, and you better believe I'll be maximally hyping up my own work if I ever feel like I am close to some kind of breakthrough too. That's part of the fun of being a living thing in this weird physical universe.
What’s the point of going to the moon? Meanwhile, we have thousands of satellites in space that help predict the weather and facilitate instant long distance communication.
It may not be true, but some amount of keeping it light definitely works for me. I mean I love taking myself seriously too. And some amount of doing that I think is necessary. I guess I just don't wanna put all my eggs in one strategic-approach basket, you know? People are complex! :)
Isn't this textbook survivorship bias?
On the grand scale, I bet the skeptics have a much better record than the optimists.
Progress, and working on progress is inherently risky. But by the time actual progress seems to have arrived speculation on how true it is and what the impact will be if it is true is perfectly valid and those that would rather engage in shouting everything down are technically off topic and I personally find it annoying. Not quite as annoying as crank science but still.
On that subject: there is still a non-zero chance this is a hoax but that chance is rapidly diminishing, there is a very large chance that this whole discovery will not be immediately practical and that it will still take a ton of work and funding to unlock its true potential. The skeptic would rather not spend that money and would rather avoid the work, it's a cop-out, and a cheap and easy one at that, and it's exactly why the skeptics have the better track record: progress is hard. But not impossible so let's see what comes out but let's not give up hope that progress is still possible, especially not when it seems that progress is being made.
My initial skepticism was high (this isn't the first room temperature superconductor claim), then as I read the paper and checked some stuff my conclusion was that this could be the real thing but the numbers are such that it isn't a practical superconductor just yet. That confidence has since gone up a bit but I still would not bet that this material as discovered right now has huge industrial applications. But if it is true then I am somewhat optimistic that it opens the door to lots of new research and that research may well pay off (or not, time will tell).
If, to you, the most interesting thing about LK99 and the developments thereof is tweets and internet forum drama about it, then that speaks more about you than anything to do with anything else.
If you don't have anything to add to the conversation, then just don't add?