Thanks for sharing this! I agree with some of the things namely
I tried to stress the early state of the technology and large uncertainty, but your comment makes me realize that I should have front-loaded more heavily that nearly all the things I mentioned are long-term concerns.
On the “why now rather than later”, I partly disagree:
Finally, on the “lumping”, it is motivated by the possible future of quantum networking for distributed quantum sensing and interconnecting quantum computers with quantum sensors. Maybe I should have made more explicit in the post that right now, quantum sensors are, as you said, just a slightly better way of doing things we can already do.
Thanks! I partly agree on the cryptography part, I definitely don’t think that it would be effective to fund efforts towards transitioning to quantum-safe cryptography. Nonetheless, I do believe that working on the quantum-safe transition could be a good career option for someone who already has expertise in the field (feel free to push back on this).
I think in the future, it could be promising to work on capacity building and helping places that lack behind catch up to new cryptography standards. Especially, if real negative consequences start to materialize (which maybe won’t primarily be quantum-enabled hacks but rather compatibility challenges).
Finally, just to clarify, I think that cryptography is the most clear problem, but probably not the most important one from an EA perspective.