@glyph Did you quote post something?

[miss_rodent@girlcock.club]

@xgranade @glyph I tend to infodump too, so, very much no need to apologize/I appreciate the input, it's a field I have looked into a little bit but not very deeply or very recently, just kinda looked into it as something tangential to the residual math/physicist nerdery that lingered after I dropped out of Uni.

And yeah, it seems unlikely to be a thing corporate and finance types would be that interested in, or if it will be does not seem like it will be anytime soon.

[xgranade@wandering.shop]

@miss_rodent @glyph I guess the last thing I should add is that there's a lot of problems where we know a priori that there *isn't* a quantum advantage — if someone spends most of their CPU time now on one of those problems, then they're not likely to be a huge QC customer, making it harder for VCs to sell quantum computing as the Next Big Thing.

[xgranade@wandering.shop]

@miss_rodent @glyph I mean, there have been at least two or three big waves where corporate and finance types were very *very* interested in quantum computing. I think, and again to @glyph's point, there's a large degree to which that can be explained by zero or negative interest rates.

Each time, there's a concrete event that sets off the hype wave, and it dies down when people realize that QC is *always* five years away.

[bitprophet@social.coop]

@glyph the rest of the post is good too btw!

[xgranade@wandering.shop]

@miss_rodent @glyph Like, one time wound up being a coincidence between the timing of a complicated bit of tax... er... well, not *fraud* exactly, as it was all perfectly legal, so I'll call it tax shenanigans... around the F-35 project and the Volkwagen emissions fraud that indirectly created a gigantic hype wave. That was weird.

Another time, it was the failure of an NLP-based "AI" product that created a hype wave.

[xgranade@wandering.shop]

@miss_rodent @glyph I'm being intentionally vague here in public, but I promise those are both fully accurate descriptions even if a bit cryptic.

[miss_rodent@girlcock.club]

@xgranade @glyph Fair, though being a hype bubble and being a "Next Big Thing" are, I think, still very different sorts of interest [and not mutually exclusive, as the dotcom bubble and subsequent internetification of all things demonstrated...]
Perpetually 5 years away sounds about right, though.

[xgranade@wandering.shop]

@miss_rodent @glyph Yeah, no, fair. It's a weird one in that I think there's a lot more there there to QC than AI, by a long shot, but also it's not the line-go-up kind of thing VCs seem to hope it will be, and definitely not on the timescales they seem to think that it will happen on.

[ireneista@adhd.irenes.space]

@glyph @cthos @xgranade yeah, that does sound true. Canada in particular has put out some messaging about how, in effect, we are re-routing around the US (heh)

[glyph@mastodon.social]

@randomgeek Clearly I have similar aspirations :). Thanks!

[miss_rodent@girlcock.club]

@xgranade @glyph Yeah, I think there is a lot more potential to QC than there is to LLMs, and likely to AI, overall, though machine learning and stuff, more generally, have some very actually-useful applications in various fields. Trying to make a chatbot into a new work-eliminating machine god seems like a pretty obviously hopeless endeavor though.
I don't think the useful parts of either are going to earn the trillions that could salvage this sort of datacenter money-burning craze though.

[xgranade@wandering.shop]

@miss_rodent @glyph I spent about 10 years on classical ML tools for building QCs and another few on using QCs for doing ML, with a bonus serving of "using small QCs and novel ML algorithms to build larger QCs." Needless to say, I agree about there being some useful stuff under the moniker of machine learning.

[glyph@mastodon.social]

@xgranade @miss_rodent love the genre of mastodon post which is "as [literally the most qualified person in the world on this specific topic], 'yes'"

[astraluma@tacobelllabs.net]

@glyph I wonder if the industrial revolution was like this--a few years of wild continuous change and then settling down into a stable form.

[glyph@mastodon.social]

@astraluma I don't think any of it narrativizes quite that precisely and neatly, and it depends exactly where you were and what you were doing at the time, but, in general, I think, "yes"

[miss_rodent@girlcock.club]

@glyph @xgranade On the plus side, the 'extremely qualified yes' genre of post is at least a good sanity check on my side of it, I'm not nearly as qualified and have shifted focus more into philosophy and the humanities since dropping out of my math/physics major in uni .

[triplefox@pounced-on.me]

@glyph thinking about how this has played out in my lifetime, I can think of three key ingredients that probably repeat throughout history and produce "Big Thing" effects: presumption, speculation, and coercion.

You need the presumption to start thinking about a technology in terms of large scale adoption - a "computer on every desktop" kind of statement has to be collectively believed enough for an investment market to exist. Everything SV pushes is an attempt to rewrite history and develop new idols; startups resemble cults because their employees have to believe in something radical that is often unpopular when related in its full consequence - e.g. spreading computers means you've invented computer illiteracy as a social penalty. "But computers are cool so whatever," we say looking from the inside.

The investment has to be speculative because the new presumption has to counter a previous one, like "there is a world market for maybe five computers". One challenges the other in the marketplace. If it's an executive change then there's no power struggle to make the thing "big".

And the market has to be supportive of gangster dynamics in some fashion, where the speculative entities coerce each other and other industries into consolidated forms - in kinetic confrontation on a battlefield, in courtrooms and contracts, through marketing and manipulation of common vocabulary and idioms. If the change occurs without a coercive push then it doesn't manifest big opportunities to grab wealth.

Right now, the first is the one that is failing the most frequently. There is investment and coercion but it's not towards believable ends, which redirects the resulting activity towards "loot and plunder." Rises in authoritarian thinking signal that the prevailing dynamic of the powermonger and how they engage in the economy has shifted from "own relatively less of more" towards "own relatively more of less". So they kick the legs out from underneath a lot of older presumptions to try to get something going for themselves and we get a nihilistic sentiment from the top.

In this period I believe artists and philosophers may hold a position of cultural strength because training towards "different ways of seeing and thinking" also develops novel belief systems. When the culture is being stuffed with a battle for Big Things, nobody has time for it - they are trying to stay in line and take the easy opportunities, socially speaking, so they praise the incumbent winners or the managed competition of celebrities, sports, and political parties, and we get a monocultural dynamic. But right now, monoculture is dead - or maybe it's just sleeping.

[gimulnautti@mastodon.green]

@glyph The enrichment of the 1% or 0.1% is effectively inflation. What’s actually going on is that managent of people living in poverty is becoming cheaper and cheaper..

[carlton@chaos.social]

@glyph “Front-loading a massive amount of conceptual complexity to accommodate the problems of hyper-scalers is a common mistake.” 🥳

[leah@blahaj.social]

@glyph @bitprophet yet we are only 24% into the century