Don't play dumb. It is unbecoming.

At the same time, "but I don't like this law" isn't going to protect you from punishment if you break it.

Fight unethical laws with every fiber but you're going to be far more effective if you Chesterton's Fence than if you just stomp your feet and whine.

You cannot know whether there will be a breakthrough. At this time, all that is known says there will not be one.

As to breakthroughs having happened in other areas, that is not an indicator that one will happen here. That is just a form of survivorship bias.

You are hilariously without insight.

With them currently needing bout 15x as much revenue as they have to keep the lights on? Very improbable indeed.

The question is what bugs they miss. Because that determines whether you still need to do a full review and that review does not actually get mich faster when there are fewer bugs.

It seems meaningless stunts is all that the reminder of what once was "IBM Research" can produce these days.

Age gates cannot be placed in any meaningful way in Linux. Not possible. Hence they may be placed somewhere, but they will be meaningless. Example: My Linux systems have no systemd. Second example: You can boot Linux from read-only medium and that possibility will not go away.

The child is you. Actual adults understand that things still need to work, regardless of laws. Hence laws may need to be worked around.

The facts are _really_ clear: The current factorization record without trickery and deception is 21. Might as well predict that "magic" will break classical crypto in any meaningful time with about the same level of justification.

Well, my current estimate id +5 effective qbits every 50 years. That linear scaling may be massive overestimating things, chances are the real scaling is inverse exponential, but lets assume it is linear for the moment. RSA130 needs around 450 effective qbits in a long calculation. We are currently able to factor 21, i.e. 5 bits. Hence we may see RSA130 fall to a QC in something like 4500 years.

I have absolutely no problem with QCs as physics experiments and for advancing some areas of Math. But pushing them as future computing mechanisms is dishonest and should count as scientific misconduct.

And that is just for them breaking even. Anybody thinks they can push ad revenue 150 times higher?

Indeed. Also note that "basically no progress" can be a lot faster than "basically no progress". At the glacial pace that QCs are making, and with the laughably low performance they currently have (factoring 21 after 50 years of research, seriously???) relative speeds are strongly subject to meaningless artefacts.

We are not going to get AGI this century. The people that claim that are lying (Altman) or are delusional. AGI is not a question of throwing more computing power at the problem. Something fundamental is missing and we have no idea what. Also note that most humans may not actually have any meaningful amount of general intelligence. Only about 10-15% are independent thinkers and can fact-check. And that is basically what AGI would need to be able to do to qualify. Unless we find out a lot more, we cannot even make predictions on whether machines can have AGI.

Now, given that state of affairs and tech history, this indicates we are at the very least 100 years away. And that is if we get a credible and practical theory how AGI works tomorrow. The one mechanisms we have that is AGI (automated theorem proving) does not scale at all in practice due to exponential effort and that is a hard limit. We do not have any other mechanisms. And some quasi-mysticism like "put in all human knowledge and AGI will result" is just bullshit and has no scientific value.

Yes. Not quite there, may take another 20 years or so, but I had an opportunity to see where they where 35 years ago. And they already were deep in the details at that time back when. But the thing is, self-driving is a classical problem and classical problems can be divided, parallelized, special cases and maps put into databases, etc. Self-driving is conceptually _easy_. The practical aspects are not. None of that is true for Quantum Computations. Quantum Computations are all-or-nothing and you cannot break them down into smaller parts.

That said, AGI is still completely out of reach and may not even be in reach of machines in this universe. There is far too much unknown to even credibly speculate. Going to Mars might be possible at this time, but you go there to die. Colonization is at least 100 years away and makes no sense. "Colonizing" the desserts and oceans on earth would be far, far easier and I do not see anybody doing that...