I too doubted, from the beginning, that neural networks will be the basis of AGI. As impressive and useful as LLM's are, they are still a long, long way from AGI.
It is not a one dimensional take... it is a stress test of qubit gate fidelity [across all qubits involved in the circuit], state prep and measurement , lifetime (coherence), memory errors, etc.
Now I agree that there are other great stress tests of quantum computer systems... but most of the industry agreed that quantum volume was a great metric several years ago. As many companies systems have been unable to hit decent QV, companies have pivoted away from QV to other metrics... many of them are half baloney.
The better analogy here, in my opinion, is until someone builds a car that actually drives forward...
A lot of these quantum computing papers are just loud engine rev'ing.
But you are right... "zero attention" is hyperbole... I shouldn't have said "I pay zero attention"... I should have said, "I am underwhelmed and don't give a lot of credence to systems until they demonstrate ability to perform high fidelity calculations of reasonable complexity and depth."
I do think superconducting qubits approaches will continue to improve in fidelity and ability... there are just too many brilliant people working on these challenges to count them out.
Until a company can demonstrate a quantum volume of even just 2^16... their computer is just about worthless for any sort of half-real quantum computing.
I pay zero attention to any technical information and marketing speak coming from a quantum computing company until they demonstrate decent quantum volume.
Most companies computers can't even hit 2^16 so they are figuring out means of distracting the market from the poor fidelity of their systems.
Modern high-end fabs have extremely expensive equipment and are highly automated... like they are so automated that people don't actually handle wafers... it is almost all robotic.
Thus, salaries and cost of services do not factor in as heavily as you might think to fab economics.
Data suggests that TSMC's per wafer costs in Arizona are 10-30% higher than Taiwan and that Arizona fab is relatively new. It's economics will probably improve over time, narrowing the margin to 5-15%.
Looking towards the future, power costs and other global supply chain factors could very easily make TSMC's Arizona fab less expensive and more reliable to operate over time. For one, the US is completely energy independent... Taiwan is not.
Going away from physical book-based learning was possibly well intentioned (but I have my doubts)... but it was really dumb.
There are clear studies that show reading a physical book (versus a screen) and using and physical pen or pencil on a piece of paper, versus typing or drawing on a screen, leads to higher comprehension and retention of information... and thus much better overall learning outcomes. This doesn't even consider the fact that youtube, discord, and a bunch of other apps are a swipe away on an iPad.
A common solution to the "carrying books around problem" used to be there was the copy you were issued (and mostly stayed at home) and there was a shared classroom copy.
Carrying around 2-3 books plus a binder is not a big deal (and is not a 30lb backpack... more like 10-15 lbs)... we act like this is some sort of massive hardship yet so many of us did this for over a decade of our childhood with no ill effect.