one described it as “clumsy, chaotic and poorly planned.” Hmmm, do I detect a hint of bias in the writing at the AP? Why does this need to be included if all but one of the groups seems to ‘welcome’ it?
Headline should read, DeepMind calculated 2.2 million hypothetically stable crystal structures with the possibility to advance everything from materials science to biology (emphasis mine)
There’s a large difference between a hypothetical crystal structure and being able to produce that crystal structure in the real world. And an even larger difference between the hypothetical and the ability to produce the crystal structure in an efficient and cost-effective enough manner to be usable. There are already multiple materials that are known that would make better batteries than lithium-ion batteries, but either the manufacturing method is too hard or expensive, or the materials are extremely rare. So it’s nice DeepMind was able to do this, but it’s years from being usable still.