It seems that IBM is really struggling to stay connected to reality, let alone run a profitable business.
Are you suggesting IBM is not profitable?
Q – Initiative to build commercially available universal quantum computers
31–40 of 67 posts
Re: Q – Initiative to build commercially available universal quantum computers
#32> While technologies like AI can find patterns buried in vast amounts of existing data, quantum computers will deliver solutions to important problems where patterns cannot be found and the number of possibilities that you need to explore to get to the answer are too enormous ever to be processed by classical computers.
Oh what a load.
Re: Q – Initiative to build commercially available universal quantum computers
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that QC-s have the potential to be as revolitonary as transistors were. Yet we are at the level when transistors were mostly used to make radios portable. Thus it's not really justified to mock them as lame factoring devices.
That's not how I read your comment. It clearly tries to suggest that when the transistor was first invented people did not know what to do with it. I think the MASER/LASER would have been a far better example.
I read that somewhere (can't recall the source) that it was a nice gadget, but it wasn't an overnight sensation. You are right, MASER/LASER is a better analogy.
Re: Q – Initiative to build commercially available universal quantum computers
#34> While technologies like AI can find patterns buried in vast amounts of existing data, quantum computers will deliver solutions to important problems where patterns cannot be found and the number of possibilities that you need to explore to get to the answer are too enormous ever to be processed by classical computers. Oh what a load.
There's some pretty cool problems in quantum systems like chemistry that even a classical supercomputer would not be able to solve
This could have a very positive impact on fields like medicine
Re: Q – Initiative to build commercially available universal quantum computers
#35I tried testing the Bernstein Vazarani algorithm on a 5 qubit quantum computer that IBM let us use for an afternoon for one of my university classes last semester. It was unable to recover the hidden string, even though simulating the circuit classically recovered it. Anyone can launch a "quantum computer as a service" platform, but the service won't be valuable if the computer doesn't work. And so far no quantum com…
> but the service won't be valuable if the computer doesn't work. So the state-of-the-art in quantum computing is still basically "can tell you the 200th prime number, sometimes"? Not very useful.
But this is new territory, and researchers shouldn't give up just because it doesn't work very well now.
I recall that the iPhone/iPad were preceded by attempts at tablet computing that were very crude in comparison.
Give it a couple of years and see where it leads.
Re: Q – Initiative to build commercially available universal quantum computers
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but the service won't be valuable if the computer doesn't work. So the state-of-the-art in quantum computing is still basically "can tell you the 200th prime number, sometimes"? Not very useful.
But this is new territory, and researchers shouldn't give up just because it doesn't work very well now. I recall that the iPhone/iPad were preceded by attempts at tablet computing that were very crude in comparison. Give it a couple of years and see where it leads.
> I recall that the iPhone/iPad were preceded by attempts at tablet computing that were very crude in comparison.
That's a very poor analogy. Here we are talking about stuff that is not even functional, technology wise.
Re: Q – Initiative to build commercially available universal quantum computers
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this is new territory, and researchers shouldn't give up just because it doesn't work very well now. I recall that the iPhone/iPad were preceded by attempts at tablet computing that were very crude in comparison. Give it a couple of years and see where it leads.
> I recall that the iPhone/iPad were preceded by attempts at tablet computing that were very crude in comparison. That's a very poor analogy. Here we are talking about stuff that is not even functional, technology wise.
Poor poor analogy, but at least you get the picture.
They are talking 15- and 17-qubit-capable processors today, but are looking at 50-qubit ones in a few years.
Re: Q – Initiative to build commercially available universal quantum computers
#38> While technologies like AI can find patterns buried in vast amounts of existing data, quantum computers will deliver solutions to important problems where patterns cannot be found and the number of possibilities that you need to explore to get to the answer are too enormous ever to be processed by classical computers. Oh what a load.
There's some pretty cool problems in quantum systems like chemistry that even a classical supercomputer would not be able to solve This could have a very positive impact on fields like medicine
I am not saying what quantum computing is or isn't doing. Contrasting quantum computing and AI is like comparing... digging a hole and shovels. "While digging a hole is useful, these shovels are even better than hole-digging!" It's nonsense sauce. If quantum computing can be useful at AI tasks, then quantum computing won't replace AI, we'll be doing AI on quantum computers. This is just marketing mumbo jumbo to convince some C-suite type that doesn't know a thing about data science to say, "Why are we still using AI and not this quantum thing IBM has? Quantum is better than AI!"
Re: Q – Initiative to build commercially available universal quantum computers
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how I read your comment. It clearly tries to suggest that when the transistor was first invented people did not know what to do with it. I think the MASER/LASER would have been a far better example.
I read that somewhere (can't recall the source) that it was a nice gadget, but it wasn't an overnight sensation. You are right, MASER/LASER is a better analogy.
If you are talking about transistors, when they were invented the only other alternatives were triodes (vacuum tubes) or mechanical relays. Both were orders of magnitude less reliable and slower in terms of switching speed. When transistors were invented it was a mad dash to get them cheap and small enough to replace everything else, because everyone could tell they were the future. It took 9 years between the first transistor and receiving the Nobel Prize for it.
Re: Q – Initiative to build commercially available universal quantum computers
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how I read your comment. It clearly tries to suggest that when the transistor was first invented people did not know what to do with it. I think the MASER/LASER would have been a far better example.
I read that somewhere (can't recall the source) that it was a nice gadget, but it wasn't an overnight sensation. You are right, MASER/LASER is a better analogy.
[deleted]