Comment by iliatoli

6 hours ago

Author here. Some fair points, some misreadings.

The caching comment refers to the Tier 1 controller holding a bitmap of bits it has already scanned — standard practice in any scanning probe system. It's not competing with the storage medium for capacity.

Tier 2 is explicitly labeled speculative. The paper's validation target is Tier 1: one C-AFM scan, one voltage pulse, existing equipment.

The core contribution is not the architecture — it's the physics: a verified transition state for C-F pyramidal inversion at 4.6 eV (B3LYP) and 4.8 eV (CCSD(T)), one imaginary frequency, barrier below bond dissociation. That's standard computational chemistry, not handwaving. The architecture sections are forward-looking by design.

The fluorine passes between two carbon neighbors through a C-C gap of 2.64 Å at the transition state — not through any atom. This is pyramidal inversion, the same mechanism as ammonia, but with a 4.6 eV barrier instead of 0.25 eV.

Magnetic tape comparison is in Table 2.

4 comments

iliatoli

Reply
rogerrogerr  4 hours ago

Dude, you _have_ to write things in your own words if you want to be taken seriously. "The <x> is not <y> — it's <z>" will cause a bunch of people to disengage, and those people have high overlap with the people who may fund you.

  • topspin  32 minutes ago

    "Dude, you _have_ to write things in your own words if you want to be taken seriously."

    How is this lost on people? Everything that contains the slightest hint of "AI slop" is instantly panned anywhere it appears, and yet people such as Ilia Toli appear to be entirely oblivious to this.

    It's tragic. There is at least a non-zero chance that this work is a world changing breakthrough. It's clear, based on his engagement with comments here, that he at least believes this. And yet the first thing the guy does with it is debase it all using a clanker.

    It boggles the mind.

    We're seeing this throughout academe, in courts with both lawyers and judges, and among lawmakers and journalists. Several times a week one or another of these makes another headline for misapplying "AI". It seems that the work for which we are all expected to have the highest regard is coming from people that are completely witless; both unaware of how transparent this is and unaware of the consequences.

    You have to be deeply ensconced inside an impenetrable bubble to do that to yourself.