wet
555 posts



we need 10,000x more AI doing bio/acc research

it's not a cherry picked list, I'm being as comprehensive as humanly possible and I lay out my criteria in the article. obviously it's subjective but I did the best I could based on my knowledge and 10 years following this space full time. I'm not going to accept a situation where you have to call up a dev to get their perspective on a critical matter, nor is that practical for me or anyone else. they should freely share this with the public or recuse themselves entirely. there are a trillion dollars at stake. you can't accept the responsibility of stewarding a protocol while keeping your views on the most important technical debate private. barring public statements on the mailing list or on here, i will continue to assume the vast majority of these people are not concerned, and act accordingly.

Going from ~1,000 noisy qubits to 500k fault-tolerant ones by 2029 isn’t just a "roadmap",… it’s a **physical miracle** or a massive bluff.







It’s easy to dunk on Geoffrey Hinton for his 2016 declaration that it was “completely obvious” that radiologists would have no jobs within 5 years, while in fact, the number of radiologists has grown. But this prediction was more than a simple mistake. It’s a synedoche for the entire discourse of AI timelines and doom.
















