>"For those who are in the field, who were at the talk, I'm sure there was more than enough information presented for them to judge the claims (one way or the other)."
I can assure you 100% this is not the case. Perhaps they could get that info by extensively talking to the presenter afterwards (which will not be recorded), but no way you can fit it into a 15-60 min talk or onto a poster, or any way that will be shared later. Not physically possible.
Edit:
Ok, I imagined a bunch of androids like Data (star trek character), and believe it may be physically possible but would require superhuman capabilities to transmit and process information.
What I think is getting glossed over is that this wasn't a lay audience they are talking to... it's an audience who knows the field and prior research. There is a lot that the presenter doesn't have to go over, since it's already assumed that the audience already knows it. So in this case, they need to present only what is new and novel. There is more than enough time for this.
If you're not in that field, then no, you're not going to walk away with a good understanding of the work. Talks are always tailored to the audience.
My issue is with talking to the media. The people at the conference (should) realize it is just a high level overview (usually with preliminary data) presented to let them know what is going on and get them interested in the topic. It is not taken as a serious venue to make any claims.
Also, did the link change? I can't find the line I originally quoted anymore.
I can assure you 100% this is not the case. Perhaps they could get that info by extensively talking to the presenter afterwards (which will not be recorded), but no way you can fit it into a 15-60 min talk or onto a poster, or any way that will be shared later. Not physically possible.
Edit: Ok, I imagined a bunch of androids like Data (star trek character), and believe it may be physically possible but would require superhuman capabilities to transmit and process information.