Another way of looking at this if western companies are screwed.. hardware prices return to planet earth where more people are able to run this stuff at home. Three years ago the cost of 512GB DDR5 was less than the cost of a single 4090 GPU today.

What is the objective basis of your statement? Do you reject benchmark results? If so what have you used in their place to make such a determination?

What data points do you have to support exponential growth of logical qubit count with time?

There are good reasons not to have the government "pick winners", but this isn't a good example. This is a historically-incompetent and utterly-corrupt administration picking winners, and that's guaranteed to go badly. What actually works reasonably well is government grants to the National Science Foundation, and letting the NSF evaluate grant proposals and dole out the money on scientific merit.

There's your problem: Javascript.

I'm actually serious. LLMs in their current incarnation need a lot of guardrails, and I think they do much better with a very strict, statically-typed language.

If I did have to write Javascript and I wanted to use an LLM I would focus hardcore on extremely thorough and extensive unit tests, because that's the only way to provide the necessary guardrails. And I would closely scrutinize all test changes made... or maybe just mark the test code as read-only so the AI can't modify the tests.

Also you should be very picky about architecture, and have the LLM implement in smallish chunks, thoroughly vetting its output each time.

Is this a lot of work? Yes! It's a lot less work than doing it all yourself, but if you just give the AI a high-level problem description and turn it loose, you're probably going to end up with crap. Even worse in a language like JS that encourages crap anyway.

Please yes, I would love an explanation how your reference is responsive to "Wake me up when they create one with even 100 reliable logical qubits." given the experimental device you referenced did no such thing.

My initial knee-jerk reaction is that it isn't woke enough which is why woke outfits like the bulwark are calling it boring. These are the same people who called the everything everywhere random AI slop movie "profoundly moving" and "great".

Keep in mind I have zero clue what is actually in this movie and most probably will never see it.

At lkeast if the subject in question is somthng that are buillt on in courses they have in later years. Because if juo don't know the matereal well enough to pass, you will struggle unnecessarily when you hit courses that excerpts that the material tested on the exam you cheated on to be already known. Ofc this argument completely fails for subjects you just take to fill in credit qoutas . Or if the cheting iss more to inflate grades than to pjus simply pass the class

This is from someone who doesn't understand the difference between a qubit and a logical qubit.

Claude should be your companion coder. Not THE coder. You're using the tool wrong. Let Claude do the mundane stuff. Your output should be at least 50% higher if you use the tool right.

It's high. I have a team of three reviewers, and I think their reviews are kind of thin. They do point out useful improvements, but I think more careful review could find more. That said, I also feel like the overall quality is actually higher.

I've also been coding professionally for a little over 35 years, and AI is a complete game-changer. It's going to take us a while to figure out just how much. I actually wonder if my focus on code quality is pointless. I put a lot of effort into ensuring that code is clean and readable for humans, but will that really matter? My current project is the realization of something I've been thinking about for 15 years... how to build a crypto API that guides users to use it correctly and safely. But will that actually matter, or will users just point an LLM at it that has more knowledge about what's safe and hygienic than I do?

Mostly I don't think about it. I'm building something I've wanted to build for a long time, doing it incredibly quickly, and having a great time at it. I'm going to do this for another 2-3 years, then retire. I expect to leave behind something that I'd have been immensely proud of a decade ago... an elegant design with a very high quality implementation.

But I'm not sure that it will be better in practice than something quick and dirty, because I'm not sure people are going to be writing code at all in a few years, and I don't know if the readability and maintainability characteristics I'm so careful about will even matter to its users.

Fair. In a competitive market those are the same things, but monopoly situations -- especially government-enforced monopolies, like patented drugs -- create curves that behave differently.

To the degree that's true, it's nothing inherent in the processor generations. What's happened is that Moore's Law has slowed dramatically. If there were as much performance difference between a 2026 CPU and a 2020 CPU as there was between a 2006 CPU and a 2000 CPU, we'd still be feeling the need to upgrade regularly.

Consider, for example that between 2000 and 2006, clock speeds tripled, CPUs went from single to dual core, and instructions per clock went up. A 2006 flagship CPU was ~20X faster than a 2000 flagship CPU. From 2020 to 2026 we saw, what, 2X? And most of that gain came from increasing core counts and hybrid big/little cores, which means that most workloads don't realize the full benefit.

When machines are getting an order of magnitude faster every five years, you're going to be upgrading frequently. That hasn't been happening for a while. If we have some major shift in CPU tech that give us 10X faster machines by 2030, the upgrade treadmill will resume.

Of course it does. TPM keys are stored in HARDWARE onboard a specific motherboard. This creates unnecessary and unwanted dependency on specific hardware.

On my PC the TPM is wiped whenever a BIOS update is installed. This behavior is extremely common.

That should have been km^3, obviously.