A reader asked for my views on quantum computing. My response:
Aside from cryptography, I don’t see quantum computing as a strategic game-changer. It could help in sophisticated modeling. It won’t speed up the algorithms we’ve already developed. We have a successful pipeline of compute capabilities for 99% of our digital needs. We’re good at optimizing for increased efficiency.
Should we continue to explore and develop quantum computing? Yes, because of cryptography, which is crucial in geopolitical security and war. Yes, because it could help us create more powerful predictive models of complex events like hurricanes and epidemics.
And then she asked me about virtual reality. My response:
There is some VR success in gaming, but I suspect we’re years from mass acceptance and ubiquitous use. It’s a difficult technology to implement for large populations because of the wide range of human perception capabilities and strengths. Meta’s VR group reported $16B in operating losses in one year trying to develop immersive VR and has begun cutting staff.
I expect people will continue to develop VR. The dream future is compelling to too many people to quit now.
My question: Given all we’re learning about the limitations of interaction-via-digital-screens (and health dangers), will there be a push for IRL (in real life) as more desirable?
Another reader asked for my view on digital currencies (not crypto, but sovereign-backed currencies).
They’re inevitable. Some definite upsides for efficiency and versatility, and some downsides if you have a corrupt government. Think Singapore vs. Venezuela. A government will need to produce significant evidence of controls to persuade more to use it, given widespread institutional distrust today. Adoption will be a small step for many citizens who are transacting with cards far more than cash.
