[cerol]

> but I can't help think this is just a terrible way to invest

Picking a company to invest in only half the job, choosing how much to invest is the other half.

It's a terrible way to invest if you put all your money into it. QC "changing the world" is a tail-end event. You allocate according to the risk.

[sicp-enjoyer]

I am not talking about investing in companies. I am talking about how these companies invest their R&D capital in projects.

> QC "changing the world" is a tail-end event. You allocate according to the risk

But, nobody has a clear idea how it's a risk. They just invest because others invest. You might as well allocate some capital to protect against giant aggressive pigs ruining the southern US.

To put it another way. What value is being provided by the managers of this capital? If they just put money in everything that seems popular in tech media (because it's a tail risk), then couldn't anyone do their job?

[forrest2]

> I am not talking about investing in companies. I am talking about how these companies invest their R&D capital in projects.

Some food for thought:

These companies do have economies of scale on their side for internal tech investments. Things like this are a cheaper bet for them than for anyone else. Investments that seem irrational in a vacuum (aka for anybody else) can be rational for these specialized parties.

They already have hardware specialists, contacts / relationships, software expertise, idle bodies, etc.