This doesn't solve grinding? If it did, we'd see results by now (Published: 27 January 2026), and there's months of delay between submission and publication.
I'm willing to be wrong, but I'm just not seeing anything worth doomering over. There are multiple companies throwing AI at materials discovery; a research paper about a "data-driven framework" is about as unthreatening to my thesis as it gets. I'm willing to cede the point if say, Radical releases ~3 new materials that have commercial applicability and ~3x some useful metric e.g. tensile strength, but until then, to my amateur eye, it looks like AI+Real World is missing its ChatGPT moment.
No, this method does not work. I tried, got rid of all those stuff because why would I need it ever again. And of course a month later I needed that one stupid thing right there and then. And I remember throwing away... Not again, I keep at least one cable of each in a separate box to find immediately, the rest is stored, it is not asking for any money.
Yeah, what happens to me is I need a thing, go to Amazon to order it, see that I already bought it 4 years ago, spend 30 minutes trying to find it, then let out a big sigh and order it again.
Ah, most of the people just click yes, yes, allow, allow, yesIamsure, next. Especially when the system is training them to do exatly this by these meaningless warnings you described.
Yes, it is very useful for these kind of things. I hacked my Zyxel router's firmware with it, and reverse engineered the Amiga Kickstart rom, things like this, it's fun :)
But where is the money? Would you start a company based on this? I wouldn't. I just solve problems with it I'm too lazy to do otherwise.
I get paid to solve problems. If it helps me get paid to solve problems, it has economic value. I will pay for a tool to help me solve problems, based on the cost and what economic gain I can realize in total. If it helps me solve my own problems that are not business or profitable problems, I'll still use it, just differently (ie "cost efficiently").
The time we live in is not too bad. 200 years ago roughly 40-50% of the children died before the age of 18. If you wanted to have 3 kids, you had to make 6.
reply