If fake those researchers careers are over. Like, they'll have to go into programming or something. And they've also besmirched the good name of Korea, and their moms are going to beat the shit out of them for fucking up that bad. They've got a LOT to lose if this is fake, which is why I think it's most likely true. But hey, sometimes people just do crazy shit.

Impossible, wall street has some of the smartest scientists on the planet. They absolutely went through the research and determined it was a fake. Look at the AI boom, nasdaq rallied 40%. Superconductor would have had the same effect

squints... can't tell if this is sarcasm. Microstrategy is still trading at like 2x their BTC holdings and so on and so forth, the AI boom is still in-progress and imo the jury is still out on the actual, real-world and $ implications... I think it's sarcasm.

Yes but LK-99 is practically unusable in current form if it's a superconductor. There needs to be a lot more material science research before it can be put into utopian use cases that everyone is dreaming about. Recent AI boom brought a lot more finished products which can be immediately put to use.

* * *

Like how the markets caught on to Covid in early February 2020?

China shutting down, drowning in body bags, yet US markets don't flinch.

You know how there was a dotcom boom? Well the AI boom is just a repeat. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Save this comment and revist it in 5 years.

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

somewhere I read the a good addition to this:

"and those who do know history are doomed to watch it being repeated"

...nothing happened to the markets ~2017 when the transformer architecture (behind the current AI boom) happened. Nor in 2020 when it was pretty obvious shit scales and generalizes well. ONLY when it got built into an actual product (ChatGPT) did the needle start to move.

Same with this, until someone figures out how to make WIRES from LK-99-like-stuff that can be made into useful MAGNETS, it will stay flat.

Markets may be very smart... but they're hyyyyyper-conservative :P (an it makes sense to be so, there's the $$$ powering agriculture and healthcare and pensions floating on the seas of markets nowadays).

Transformers in 2017 basically were just better at computing similarities between blocks of text. OpenAI really did take them and turn them into something new.

"room-temp semiconductors in 2023 were just small blocks of stuff levitating atop magnets without needing to be cooled. XYZ really did manage to produce them into useful shapes that still remain superconductive when you push more than 0.00001 amps through them"

The paper was leaked by someone fired from the team months prior. The researchers still active were not satisfied with the state of their paper.

> The market never lies.

I suppose you weren't paying much attention in 2008.

That was probably the one time the market was being truthful before it all got pumped up again. Nothing to see here, move along!

The market isn't magic, it too would only rise with sufficient repeatable confirmation and indications of viability for mass production and application. After all, we do have knowledge of 'magic' materials like carbon nanotubes and graphene, and yet the stock market hasn't gone crazy over them.

You're saying that, if this had been real, the stock market would have known about it before the scientific community? How exactly?

The markets do predict things but they can't synthesise correct information out of nowhere. Wall Street stock brokers weren't exactly going to sit down and start trying to replicate these results to see if they could cash in on it

Contrary to bored laymen on the internet willing to believe anything for escapism, the stock market usually reflect the outside view base probabilities (~0% in the case of LK-99 being real)

I would rather go with the large number of research groups who have scrambled to try to reproduce the results. They clearly did not estimate the probability to be 0. I don't see how any (correct, informed) predictions from the market could come about before experimental verification.

> The market never lies

Whilst this can sometimes be true, e.g. Disney stock decline tied to "go woke go broke", in general this is demonstrably, incredibly false.

The market is based on a mix of widely known facts, speculation, hopes, dreams, fraud, and a bunch of other weird goofy phenomena.

I think you meant to say the REAL market never lies. Because the market obviously lies but the real market is whatever you say it is.