I certainly enjoyed the listen, but the Commission report is such a China bash that I never got past page 50. It seemed like a PR piece rather than an analysis to provide unbiased focus on how China's efforts might be blunted.
Great listen, however, and it is clear these guests were very knowledgeable and thoughtful.
On “surprisingly, quantum software doesn’t exist yet — not in a meaningful way”: this isn’t surprising. We’re still in the phase of repeatedly demonstrating that quantum computers can beat classical computers on highly contrived, non-practical benchmark problems. We don’t yet know how many years it will be until the first broadly useful commercial quantum product appears.
Scott Aaronson (one of the field’s leading researchers) is blunt about the current landscape. While he says useful quantum computing "plausibly is imminent", he also notes “The main known applications of quantum computers remain (1) simulating quantum physics and chemistry, (2) breaking currently deployed cryptography, and (3) eventually achieving some modest benefits for optimization and machine learning… The ‘30,000-foot view’ hasn’t changed much in 25 years once you strip away the hype.” Source: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=9425
In other words: the commercially useful hardware doesn't quite exist yet, short term applications are very narrow (Scott's #1 and #2) and even the "eventual" applications (Scott's #3) are uncertain and modest
This creates a disconnect: Silicon Valley questions why Washington treats quantum computing as strategically comparable to AI, given the vastly different timelines and uncertainty.
'Sustaining life in space — whether in orbit, on the moon, or on Mars — requires synthetic biology. The biotech ecosystem isn’t only about Earth — it’s foundational for any future space presence, whether sustaining humans, plants, or other life support systems'
I certainly enjoyed the listen, but the Commission report is such a China bash that I never got past page 50. It seemed like a PR piece rather than an analysis to provide unbiased focus on how China's efforts might be blunted.
Great listen, however, and it is clear these guests were very knowledgeable and thoughtful.
On “surprisingly, quantum software doesn’t exist yet — not in a meaningful way”: this isn’t surprising. We’re still in the phase of repeatedly demonstrating that quantum computers can beat classical computers on highly contrived, non-practical benchmark problems. We don’t yet know how many years it will be until the first broadly useful commercial quantum product appears.
Scott Aaronson (one of the field’s leading researchers) is blunt about the current landscape. While he says useful quantum computing "plausibly is imminent", he also notes “The main known applications of quantum computers remain (1) simulating quantum physics and chemistry, (2) breaking currently deployed cryptography, and (3) eventually achieving some modest benefits for optimization and machine learning… The ‘30,000-foot view’ hasn’t changed much in 25 years once you strip away the hype.” Source: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=9425
In other words: the commercially useful hardware doesn't quite exist yet, short term applications are very narrow (Scott's #1 and #2) and even the "eventual" applications (Scott's #3) are uncertain and modest
This creates a disconnect: Silicon Valley questions why Washington treats quantum computing as strategically comparable to AI, given the vastly different timelines and uncertainty.
'Sustaining life in space — whether in orbit, on the moon, or on Mars — requires synthetic biology. The biotech ecosystem isn’t only about Earth — it’s foundational for any future space presence, whether sustaining humans, plants, or other life support systems'
https://aquavis.substack.com/p/pop-space-and-the-new-frontier