Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The need for quantum computers remains small

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 109 posts

Re: The need for quantum computers remains small

#11

Post by Barrin92 »

glitchc wrote: post #8

Reminds me of this: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4051190 Back then a digital computer couldn’t hold a candle to an analog one and processed only a few bits at a time. It was slow and imprecise. Look at where we are now. A general quantum computer is a fundamentally different kind of computer. Those who cannot imagine what can be done with one lack the imagination to understand foundationally new technology an…

We went from analog to digital computers because of the concrete and specific attributes of digital computers that made them useful. Saying we went from A to B, therefore we will go from B to C, regardless of what C is makes no sense. "Things change, therefore this new thing is good and you simply lack the imagnation to understand why" is about as bad of an argument as it gets.

It's also funnily enough mirrors the everlasting blockchain advocacy.

Re: The need for quantum computers remains small

#13

Post by ramraj07 »

dataflow wrote: post #7
mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: post #6

I wonder if quantum computing is just a mirage that results from looking too much at the time complexity of quantum algorithms versus the cost in qubits, which are still wildly expensive. Maybe qubits will just never scale to the number of qubits needed to meaningfully outperform classical computers.

Yeah lots of people think decoherence will prevent QC from becoming practically useful. Some researchers seem to think differently, but I never found an explanation for why I should be as optimistic as they are.

Which side is Scott Aaranson on? Just curious.

Re: The need for quantum computers remains small

#14

Post by chasil »

tjr225 wrote: post #9
glitchc wrote: post #8

Reminds me of this: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4051190 Back then a digital computer couldn’t hold a candle to an analog one and processed only a few bits at a time. It was slow and imprecise. Look at where we are now. A general quantum computer is a fundamentally different kind of computer. Those who cannot imagine what can be done with one lack the imagination to understand foundationally new technology an…

It seems that nobody on the planet is able to invent their own quantum computer.

Actually, a 65-qubit quantum computer has been created.

"IBM's current largest quantum computer, revealed this month, contains 65 qubits."

https://www.science.org/content/article/ibm-promises-1000-qu...

Re: The need for quantum computers remains small

#16

Post by dataflow »

ramraj07 wrote: post #13
dataflow wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah lots of people think decoherence will prevent QC from becoming practically useful. Some researchers seem to think differently, but I never found an explanation for why I should be as optimistic as they are.

Which side is Scott Aaranson on? Just curious.

The only link I have handy is this comment from him in 2019 [1]. I feel like I've seen more in the past, but I can't find them now.

[1] https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=4372from=timeline#comment-1822...

Re: The need for quantum computers remains small

#17

Post by O__________O »

Are quantum computers being used in economically significant ways that only are possible with quantum computers yet? If so, what is the best example?

Last time I checked few years ago, my understanding was the answer was still no; specifically, believe I asked Scott Aaronson as a follow up question to a talk he gave:

https://www.scottaaronson.com/

Re: The need for quantum computers remains small

#18

Post by jchw »

cc101 wrote: post #12

I remember when the Commodore 64 came out. "64K RAM?", I thought, "What could anyone do with so much RAM?" Power to do something new always generates new things to do with it.

You're only following the winners, but computer science has also had a lot of flops, too. Time will tell if quantum computers is one of those, but it sure isn't looking great so far.

Re: The need for quantum computers remains small

#20

Post by brokensegue »

chasil wrote: post #14
tjr225 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that nobody on the planet is able to invent their own quantum computer.

Actually, a 65-qubit quantum computer has been created. "IBM's current largest quantum computer, revealed this month, contains 65 qubits." https://www.science.org/content/article/ibm-promises-1000-qu...

I'm not an expert but I think because of the error correction mechanisms the effective number of quibits is smaller than that
Post reply on HN