We're not really near the point where most genuinely interesting quantum algorithm can be implemented on a quantum computer. We don't have enough high fidelity qubits. That situation is changing. Rose's law is an analog here to Moore's law which says that the number of qubits doubles roughly every 18 to 24 months. Coherence is also an issue, but that's also improving. Aside from these considerations, it is very common even for the algorithms and protocols which are small enough to be implemented, it is very common for one group to do the theoretical work behind the algorithm and then a bit later a more hands-on group does the actual physical implementation.

Slashverts have been an issue for over a decade here.

So tentative answer is increase in productivity in some sectors but not all, and no widespread unemployment, but also not a clear massive boost in productivity. So both the largest worries about AI in terms of replacing people and the largest claims that this technology is all junk turn out to be likely not correct, but with more data still needed to be sure. So the question then becomes will this evidence impact at all the positions of either the AI-hypesters or the anti-AI groups at all, or alternatively will both groups just ignore it or try to spin it to fit their preexisting position?

Well, that's consistent, so I will have to give you credit for that. You are aware that pretty much no one does this and we've never insisted that high electricity using corporations do this, yes?

Anything might happen but some things are more likely than others. Predictions are about what looks likely given evidence, models and current trends. They are not claims that anything will definitely happen but is likely to happen. And they can be very useful for things like long-term planning.

Why? Would you insist this for when a new manufacturing plant is in an area also, or just data centers?

Herd immunity can come from exposure to a disease. Vaccines are a major part of how we get there. For example, humans wiped out small pox completely by using a vaccine. Similarly, measles, mumps, chickenpox, and many other diseases have been drastically reduced not by exposure or waiting anything to run its course (which to be clear, hadn't happened for any of those) but high vaccination rates.

Yeah, and the related thing is that if a disease has a high R0, then it only takes a small reduction in the percentage who are vaccinated to lose herd immunity. Measles is a really good example of this. Since measles has an R0 of around 12 to 18, that translates to a needed percentage for effective herd immunity of around 1-1/12 to 1-1/18 so around 92% need to be vaccinated. Its really easy to drop below that.

It is one thing to promote anti-vax attitudes among your own voter base. That still endangers people outside that base, since people who are elderly or immunocompromised become more likely to get sick if the overall vaccination rate is lower. I for example have some immune issues and cannot currently get an MMR booster for medical reasons, so I'm actively endangered by the reduction in measles vaccination and the spread of cases. But note that what the Trump administration is doing now is much worse than just promoting anti-vax attitudes among their base. They are using government power to actively prevent the development and use of vaccines by others. There's a sad irony to this in that one of the very few bright spots of the first Trump administration was Operation Warp Speed and some other things they did to help with early covid vaccine development.

Credit availability does matter, but that's because housing prices are so high. The direction there is the other way, and the actual evidence for it is that as noted, where there's less regulation of this sort, more housing gets built and prices are lower.

It isn't one cause, but the vast majority is interrelated causes, stricter building codes, stricter zoning and more bureaucracy making it harder to build more. The fact that parts of the US which make it easier to build see housing prices go up slower is one of a variety of pieces evidence that this is the largest aspect. It may help to read the links I gave earlier.

Absolutely not. Housing prices are up because regulation has made building more housing more expensive if not outright impossible. See e.g https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/zoning-land-use-planning-housing-affordability https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/how-communities-are-rethinking-zoning-improve-housing-affordability-and-access-opportunity https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/market-rate-housing-will-make-your. Inflation is not up because people are competing for products. In fact, inflation is due to a bunch of factors including Trump's tariffs, but more people means more economies of scale which keeps prices down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale Pollution is not up due to too many people driving. In fact, most forms of pollution are declining in the long-term. US CO2 production has been trending down https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/ . And doctors and nurse shortages are part of why medical costs have gone up, but that's because the US has a massive bureaucracy to handle insurance, an aging population https://www.pgpf.org/article/why-are-americans-paying-more-for-healthcare/ and because the US has not had the number of doctors and nurses increase with population. The US has a very low percentage of doctors to population compared to many other developed countries https://data.who.int/indicators/i/CCCEBB2/217795AThis occurred in part because in the 1980s people were worried about a doctor surplus and so we spent 30 years deliberately reducing how many new doctors there were https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/how-congress-created-the-doctor-shortage/. Now a critical way of getting more doctors in the US is immigrants. https://www.aamc.org/news/1-5-us-physicians-was-born-and-educated-abroad-who-are-they-and-what-do-they-contribute.

Fair; I should have said something like "primarily" about, since it does mention the reaction, but the actual focus is on films about AI. I overstated the issue.

I know reading TFA is hard, but at least read the summary before commenting. The article is about people not wanting to watch films about AI. It is not at all about using AI to write or animate films.

That's not remotely true. A murderer is a murderer whether or not they've been caught. What is true is that someone who is not convicted of a crime should not be punished by the government. That's a radically different statement.