Evidence shows that the scientific community reached a broad consensus on LK‑99 much faster than “months to years” after early August 2023.

• Multiple independent groups synthesized LK‑99 in early August 2023 and found that pure LK‑99 is an insulator with very high resistance, not a room‑temperature superconductor.(techspot.com)
• Summaries of the episode note that by mid‑August 2023—i.e., within roughly one to two weeks of the podcast date—"the consensus was that LK‑99 is not a superconductor at room temperature, and is an insulator in pure form," following many replication attempts.(en.wikipedia.org)
• Popular and technical write‑ups from that period describe a clear and rapid convergence: worldwide collaboration “found relatively quickly (less than a month) that pure LK‑99 is not a superconductor,” and the apparent superconducting signatures were traced to impurities (notably Cu₂S) and mundane magnetic effects.(techspot.com)
• News coverage from Korea and elsewhere likewise reported in August 2023 that more and more scientists were refuting the original claim and that publications such as Nature were already characterizing LK‑99 as “not a superconductor.”(koreajoongangdaily.joins.com)
• Later peer‑reviewed work and committee reviews (e.g., from the Korean Society of Superconductivity and Cryogenics) have reinforced this conclusion; the mainstream view remains that LK‑99 is not a room‑temperature, ambient‑pressure superconductor.(nextbigfuture.com)

Because broad scientific consensus that LK‑99 is not a room‑temperature, ambient‑pressure superconductor emerged within weeks—well under “many months to a few years”—Friedberg’s timing claim that “it’s probably months to years away from knowing” is incorrect. The prediction is therefore wrong on the key point it was making (the time required to know one way or the other).