This is referring to the fact that overall phase is not real (no observable difference) but relative phase has. The word “except” is not downplaying its importance, but to emphasize the fact that overall phase isn’t physical.
Did you read the paper? Or even the intro? If a model has predictive power, it's capturing something, end of story. What you do with it, popsci spins it, how you interpret it has nothing to do with whether or not it's useful. That's your projection. Everything you are saying it doesn't do as if it's an argument against the paper happens to overlap perfectly with the things it never claimed to do.
Predictive power alone doesn’t equal causal understanding. The paper models news and opinion spread as physical processes that may (over)fit observed data, but it never establishes why these patterns occur. No counterfactuals, no intervention logic, no identification strategy. As causal inference work (like Stefan Wager's) makes clear, explanation demands more than correlation. Treating human communication as node-to-node contagion might predict past outcomes, but it misses the purposive, context-driven nature of choice. So while the model captures statistical regularities, it lacks the causal rigor needed to claim genuine understanding of human behavior.
I'm assuming you've never predicted things in practice for a living? e.g. as a quant trader? Quants have something called a "deflated sharpe ratio" since p-hacking / overfitting historical data is such a common thing and results in losses when projected into the future.
Lost me at "The main theme of biology in twentieth-century is an attempt to reduce biological
phenomena to the behavior of molecules". Maybe the theme of biophysics in the 80s-2000s, but certainly not all of biology. Evolution? The central dogma? The cell + DNA+ evolution is what I'd put as the main themes. At least toward the end of century in biophysics the ideas of emergence and hierarchy can be found in any biology or biophysics textbook.
Having done it myself, I really hate the apparently irresistible pull to set up a straw man of your field in the abstract/intro then saying your minor results resolve it. I guess it's part of science now, but I wish it could at least be confined to job talks(1).
Continuing "We argue here that "hierarchy" is a critical level of biological organization". Welcome to the club. Again, any biology/biophysics textbook worth its salt from the 90s on (conservatively) would include probably by page 50 a picture/discussion of the multiple scales involved and probably even mention hierarchical organization explicitly.
It's just hard to take seriously. What is he actually trying to prove/show? Searching Google scholar Im prematurely concluding he applied existing clustering methods (clustering was very sexy in statistical physics right around 2010) and found some modularity across scales. You couldn't throw a rock 10 feet in a physics/biophysics department around that time without finding someone doing some clustering study to show some modular/hierarchical structure in some biological or otherwise "complex" system (trade networks in his case).
Bah I think I'm just in a bad mood lol don't mind me.
Edit- I just noticed he threw in spontaneous. I don't understand what that adds to the description besides making it sound more complicated.
(1) Which reminds me of one job talk I sat in (physics department) where the speaker tried to pass off levinthal's "paradox" of protein folding as unresolved until he graced the field with his brilliance. Maybe he thought no one in the department knew anything about proteins? I was almost impressed by the boldness.
My money is on a 10-20% pullback within a year. The valuations (besides palantir and tesla) aren't really that crazy. Nvidia is producing real stuff and real people are using these so called scams because they find them helpful, for example.
Now, as for the possibility of the "big one". I think there's a 25%+ chance of that in the next 2-5 years, likely bigger than anything before. But it won't be because of a scam.
At a certain point of inequality, the valuation is whatever the person with all the money says it is. If there are fewer than 100 people holding the reigns of capital, do you still live in a capitalist system?
Let me start with an example- some time ago I worked on a VAE that encoded and decoded SMILES strings. The idea is that you should be able to encode a SMILES into an embedding space, do all the normal things you would do in that space, and then convert the resulting embedding vector back to a valid molecule.
The VAE is trained with a very large number of valid SMILES strings, typically tokenized at the character level (so "C" is a token, and "Br" is "B" then "r"). I and others have observed that VAEs trained like this produce large number of embedding vectors that do not decode to valid SMILES strings- they have syntax errors, or perform chemical alchemy (personally, I saw the training set had Br (bromine) and Ca (Calcium), and the output molecules sometimes were Ba (barium) even though that's not in the original dataset at all.
There are other reasons why the tokenizer produces bad results- only about 1-10% of vectors decode to valid molecules. Invalid SMILES are mostly useless- they don't correspond to actual structures.
To respond to this, the SELFIES format makes a few changes so that it is effectively impossible to produce invalid SELFIES stringes when decoding a VAE. Among other things, tokenization matches the actual elements and so the model will only ever output valid elements.
BTW, as a side note: even though we put a bunch of effort into duplicating the original SMILES VAE, it was extremely slow to train and not very useful. Now you can just ask Gemini to write a full SELFIES VAE and train it in less than a day on a conventional GPU (thanks pytorch transformers!) to get a decent basic set of embeddings useful for exploring chemical space.
Thanks, that's very interesting! Naive question, but why couldn't you force a specific tokenization scheme on SMILES? Specifically, just one token per element? I understand SELFIES does more, but your example of Ba/Br made me wonder.
I asked the authors of the original SMILES paper and they didn't have a good answer. I wrote a parser for SMILES so I could tokenize that way but never followed up, and eventually SELFIES was announced.
Computational biology/cheminformatics has probably been on the most frustrating investments pharma companies have made in the past 20 years. There's been waves of optimism with many hires, then a slump after reality doesn't match optimistic expections, and so on. This time it may actually be different, and I myself am in that camp. I'm particularly excited by the discoveries in sampling methods that aren't just molecular dynamics. And the cellular foundation models for pre-screening drug interactions - they aren't quite there yet, but give it time.
Way to set up a false dichotomy. I agree with the "cleverness" and the pride people take in not being religious, it's silly. But there are many forms of religion/spirituality. At the end of the day, you're just pushing the Bible here, which isn't very admirable. Maybe instead you could encourage people to explore spirituality instead of a specific religion that you probably follow only because of where you were born. At least you didn't say we're going to hell if we don't, I guess.
I hear you and I’m not trying to push a cultural version of Christianity. What I’m saying is that Jesus wasn’t just another spiritual teacher. He fulfilled hundreds of prophecies written centuries before His birth, and instead of conquering through power, He conquered through sacrifice. That’s what makes His message different and why His story has endured when so many philosophies fade.
Not all spirituality leads to peace. We live in an age where “spirituality” often means yoga, breathwork, or Stoic quotes. Things that calm the body but rarely heal the soul. Marcus Aurelius was wise, but even he couldn’t save himself from despair.
I think many of us, myself included, have resisted Christianity because of how poorly it’s been represented. But the real Christ isn’t a tool of culture or control. He’s the God who stepped down, fulfilled His own Word, and died in our place. That’s not pride. That’s mercy.
Uhhh. Ok. You lost me. Now you're just proselytizing. Have you truly not considered that people don't believe in Christianity because they don't think there's sufficient evidence for the miracles or prophecy fulfillment? That they find the bible full of contradictions and easily falsified claims? I have to doubt you ever weren't a believer the way you're speaking, or else it's really messed with your head that much. Either way, you're not convincing me, in case you wanted a sign.
I get that, and I’m not trying to convert you through a comment thread. You’re right that many people question the evidence and honestly, I did too for many decades. I didn’t grow up with unshakable faith. I grew into it by using my intellect. Testing it, doubting it, and finding the evidence of prophecy and resurrection more consistent than I expected.
I’m not here to “win” you over. I’m sharing what I’ve found because the same Jesus who changed history also changed my life. If it sounds like proselytizing, it’s only because truth isn’t meant to be hoarded. But I appreciate your honesty. At least you’re still asking questions. Most people stop there.
PS. It’s funny a lot of people try to “catch” believers in logic traps that don’t actually use logic or examples. It ends up being its own kind of proselytizing, just dressed in cynicism.
I’m all for honest discussion, but if someone’s going to dismiss faith as irrational, they should be able to back their own worldview with the same level of evidence they demand from others. Otherwise, it’s not skepticism it’s just pride wearing a lab coat.
Fair enough but saying all certainty is irrational is itself a pretty certain belief.
Everyone has faith in something, whether it’s science, reason, or their own moral compass. The difference is that Christianity doesn’t pretend we invented truth. It says Truth became a person and met us where we are. That’s not blind certainty. It’s tested faith.
Honestly, I think most of us are just trying to make sense of the world and not feel alone in it. I’ve been on both sides of this, skeptical, searching, believing, doubting again. So I get where you’re coming from. I’m not here to convince you of anything, just sharing what’s given me peace when everything else felt hollow.
If you ever want to talk about it without debating, I’d be down for that too.
