I don’t know enough about the state of quantum computing but this sounds like IBM dumping dead end research onto taxpayers
Then why are they also investing $1 billion in the same company as the taxpayers?
US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal
81–90 of 123 posts
Re: US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not GP, but in this context I would interpret the next administration[^1] holding the current administration to account as a willingness to use the court system to prosecute actual crimes committed while in office[^2]. That is by no means a given. [^1]: Assuming there is one. [^2]: That is, not petulantly prosecuting those deemed to have slighted you.
SCOTUS has already given POTUS immunity in any form other than impeachment followed by a conviction. The problem with that is that just removes POTUS from office. It does nothing to punish for those crimes that were deemed worthy enough of being impeached/convicted. SCOTUS said that POTUS cannot be held accountable for things done as official acts of office. So Congress cannot hold POTUS criminally accountable, but r…
Re: US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal
#83Re: US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal
#84Is it legal is such a pre-2025 question
Re: US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal
#85What can quantum computing do right now?
Re: US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal
#86For the past year and a half, the US administration have plunged the country in a rule of law twilight zone: the rule of law still exists, and there are still independent jurisdictions to enforce it, but the administration decided they didn't care, and they just overcome any court dismissal of their orders with a new illegal order that courts will have to push back a few month later. Which means that, in practice, th…
The previous admin also ruled via executive order. It said it would find ways to do things even if struck down by the SCOTUS such as the school loan forgiveness, firearms controls, speech suppression via “embeds” etc.
"We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we're providing Americans the kind of help that they need. I've got a pen, and I've got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.."
Re: US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being held accountable in the next administration is pretty much the opposite of what a democratic society needs. It's a never ending cycle. Let the court system handle this.
The problem is, the current admin has shown how pliable the courts are. And, this weakens them, in that, there is less of a belief of impartiality. Conjoin that with AI able to generate billions of videos, saying anything anyone wants, and you have a real issue. 99.99% of the population can't tell or even realises much of what they watch on youtube is AI, and... it will get less distinguishable, to the point that no…
The con is claiming that this has anything to do with anonymity. There are 8 billion people. Someone with money can get a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand of them to lend their names to bots. The cost of a random human name is less than the cost of the years worth of tokens they'd be putting under it. Sacrificing anonymity over that is a fraud.
On top of that, we shouldn't pretend this is a new issue. In 1975 the local magnate owned the local newspaper and radio station and had relatively unbiased coverage of issues until it came to the ones that affect their own business dealings or the political ambitions of their associates.
And your disaster scenario doesn't even work when people are getting information from multiple sources. If the sources are >50% lies and exaggerations then you can spot check a small sample of the stories and notice that. (Sadly all too many current outlets fail this test.) But if, as you posit, they offered unbiased coverage almost all of the time then their coverage would be similar to every other source offering mostly unbiased coverage, until they try to mislead you, and then your "reliable sources" would be saying different things from one another because less than 100% of them are controlled by the one trying to manipulate you, which is a major red flag that somebody is lying to you.
The actual problem is that people don't bother to do the spot checks when the source is telling them the pretty lies they want to hear. Which is nothing new and has very little to do with AI.
Re: US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal
#88Quantum itself is the most scummy, grift-filled industry. Every quantum company is riding the AI/semiconductor hype wave with basically zero revenue prospects or long-term application of the tech. Companies trading at 200x earnings, IONQs CEO claiming to the “next NVIDIA”/“base case is Cisco’s market cap” — just ridiculous.
But quantum seems to have infected some more legit players. Whatever became of Majorana chips, for example? That got some high-level attention at Microsoft.
Re: US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal
#89For the past year and a half, the US administration have plunged the country in a rule of law twilight zone: the rule of law still exists, and there are still independent jurisdictions to enforce it, but the administration decided they didn't care, and they just overcome any court dismissal of their orders with a new illegal order that courts will have to push back a few month later. Which means that, in practice, th…
The previous admin also ruled via executive order. It said it would find ways to do things even if struck down by the SCOTUS such as the school loan forgiveness, firearms controls, speech suppression via “embeds” etc.
Re: US's big bet on quantum computing may not be legal
#90For the past year and a half, the US administration have plunged the country in a rule of law twilight zone: the rule of law still exists, and there are still independent jurisdictions to enforce it, but the administration decided they didn't care, and they just overcome any court dismissal of their orders with a new illegal order that courts will have to push back a few month later. Which means that, in practice, th…
The previous admin also ruled via executive order. It said it would find ways to do things even if struck down by the SCOTUS such as the school loan forgiveness, firearms controls, speech suppression via “embeds” etc.
Can you see a problem here, a failure of the intended system of checks and balances?