Hi there, I was expecting a bit more tecky side when I first read your other reply, and not so much of a more philosophical approach to the theme. But I do acknowledge and identify with many aspects you described here, on the 8 Manifest items for example.
For me, software is the transformational conduit there. The hardware adapts to it as we move forward with the technology. The transformation happens at the frontend (edge) of whom has the power to create large cycles of industry (unfortunately) and whom has the vision and support to continue such expensive and risky approaches. These are of the likes of NVIDIA, Microsoft, Facebook, SpaceX, etc...
Then we have the society of transformational consumers... the ones that perceive these large architected long term visions and either try to take advantage of them, or revolutionize into other movements that can fight or deem to control the giants, using breakthroughs they aren't meant to be prepared to face necessarily. This is, "The internet" for example... or, torrents/P2P/etc... or OpenSource protection movements (aka GPL code), or openstandards that force common interests to be protected.
The two worlds colide immensely since the world became more digital, and are now going through a new generational cycle where machines become more expensive than food.
I foresee that eventually a new type of computer will need to emerge to resolve the problem of demand. Probably someone is already thinking about it... probably not. But eventually this need for agility on the AI, is doomed to not stop, because it was fabricated to NOT every stop. There will be always more demand needed because they way it got implemented in the first place, was engineered for not have a size per say, but be adaptable and scalable depending on the problem to solve.
We are probably still ok for the next 15 years, but pass that, something else will need to exist. And I can tell you (just my speculation, nothing else), its not going to be Quantum computers. Its something else...
Either way, I ended up philisofying too here lOLOLO
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate the technical depth you bring into the conversation, and I agree with much of what you describe. My approach may lean more toward the philosophical, but it is rooted in lived technical experience rather than abstraction.
I resonate strongly with your distinction between creators and users. I have spent many years on the creator side - designing, connecting, and shaping systems - while always keeping the human consequences in view. That perspective inevitably changes how one looks at technology. You stop seeing systems as neutral tools and begin to see them as amplifiers of intention, power, and responsibility.
I agree that software has become the primary transformational layer, with hardware adapting around it. At the same time, this concentration of power-economic, computational, and narrative - creates tensions that society then responds to. Open standards, open source, decentralized networks, and grassroots movements are not accidents; they are counterbalances. They emerge whenever systems grow too opaque or too centralized.
What interests me most is not predicting the next architecture or computing paradigm, but observing how these cycles repeat: concentration and resistance, acceleration and reflection. Whether the next shift is quantum or something entirely different matters less to me than how consciously we navigate it.
My manifesto is less about specific technologies and more about orientation: how we think, how we ask questions, and how we design systems that remain accountable to the humans they affect. In that sense, philosophy is not a detour from technology - it is its missing layer.
And yes - philosophizing seems to be contagious. 🙂