I'm not quite sure what you are on about.

What bearing does what you mention have on the question on whether things got more or less complicated?

> Also, when expected outcomes don't align with perceived results, it's usually best but not very human to doubt yourself.

Eg this seems like something that would apply equally well at any time?

> Whoever has Shor/Grovers going first, has a advantage equitable to winning the AGI race... That too can win wars.

We have plenty of quantum resistant options, and people are already switching over.

And the story of the Enigma and its encryption shows that cryptographic and its breakage was already important back in the day.

> Nothing is simple and perceived simpleness is on the clock, for everyone.

How is this different now than before, though?

It's not inherently different, how we deal with it is. Drawing conclusions from linear seemingly causal events is nuts considering that most start calculating from the future desired outcome to the present.Someone may do something stupid on purpose in order to gain later. Adversaries may do the same, the math can quickly spiral beyond human/individual comprehension. For a fact at least for a part of whoever may be involved in some way or another. Complexity is not random, and we can choose our initial conditions to our liking, causing $outcome. We now have entire DC's crunching numbers, not just a bunch of nerds at Bletchley Park. Their ability to calculate and manipulate odds for something to happen far exceeds ours, that's different now. Yet we read snippets from people speculating, drawing conclusions based on, what exactly ?

You are way more optimistic than me about anyone actually being in charge, or humanity's ability to predict things.