> General relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible at the Planck scale. This contention can be examined if a quantum computer is set to operate at a rate that exceeds the classical limit of one operation per Planck volume-time, or equivalently 2491 m−3 s−1. Here we quantify the relation between the logical qubit count and the extent to which classicality is challenged. We argue that 500 logical qubits are sufficient to reject theories confined to a laboratory. We account for the operational cost of computation and communication at all scales up to and including the observable universe, ultimately constrained by a 1600-logical-qubit computer. Remarkably, current plans for commercial quantum computers are projected to surpass this limit, thereby putting the quantum-gravity standoff to the test.

--

The notion that we're expected to be able to probe these limits within our lifetimes is very interesting and exciting

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47756448

Points: 10

# Comments: 1

What forces act on this trend? How can we make predictions? An interesting metric, which tracks the aggregate of many complex factors is the distribution of wealth, which could be seen as proxy for the distribution of power or agency of a person in their society. Median income as a fraction of total wealth decreased nearly 50% in real terms over this same period. [3]

Now inversely, during the period where life quality increased most the last century (1920 - 1980) inequality was _falling_.

How is super-human AI advanced through 2030, 2040, 2050 likely to affect things? Will it sharpen the inequality or relax it?

With AI the cost of raw resources to products goes down, but it's likely inequality increases. It's not obvious which force has a bigger impact on human quality of life as things shake out. However, I think the strongest argument – which also explains the steady improvements in QoL through previous changes you mentioned – has been to follow inequality, or median share of power in society.

- [0] https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/indices_explained.jsp

- [1] https://www.socialprogress.org/social-progress-index

- [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BOGZ1FL192090005Q

- [3] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58533

Now, the nature of AI is to change the balance of the labour trade. We have a notion of the “economic value of the average person” which is presently very high in the western world.

What happens when the median figure drops through 0 thanks to AI?

Do the remaining wealth owners share their wealth? How often does this occur in existing systems we can compare against?

The cost of primary resources to products also goes toward 0, perhaps this offsets the decreasing economic power of the average person. But what forces protect them if their bargaining power is lost?

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46721616

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45987202

Points: 4

# Comments: 1

Seems quite achievable and sustainable to me

Every human carries dense compute and sensors with them. If they don't they stand out while still surrounded by dense compute and sensors held by others at all times

Not nice to think about but it is the reality we are moving towards – vote accordingly

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45675681

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

You sound like exactly the sort of wizard they want to see!

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45012080

Points: 223

# Comments: 68

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44989060

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44922451

Points: 2

# Comments: 0