It feels like I'm reading an article on Netscape browser that says, "AI is still useless."
The need for quantum computers remains small
71–80 of 109 posts
Re: The need for quantum computers remains small
#72Re: The need for quantum computers remains small
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would be the example of an outstanding, reasonably-sized (even quantum computers of the future have finite resources) quantum simulation problem that is intractable today but would unlock some economic potential, if solved?
Drug molecule interactions, simulations for super conductors, etc. Etc.
Drug molecules are much too large for near term QC, let alone the interaction of two of them in a solvent. We're talking thousands of qubits and circuits millions of operations deep.
Re: The need for quantum computers remains small
#74Re: The need for quantum computers remains small
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got tired of speaking on behalf of a vague memory of Stephen Wolfram speaking that I just looked up the transcript. 6 SW: Yeah, I think… I think it’s not going to be true[that QC gives a speedup], that’s my guess. I think what’s going to happen is, if you take short algorithm for factoring, which is primarily a quantum Fourier transform, that Fourier transform is done beautifully quickly because there are all these…
That reads like Wolfram is generally pretty ignorant of the current state of quantum measurements. We can do continuous measurements now that barely perturb the system (Google “quantum non demolition” and “weak measurement”). Also while measurements are difficult to explain in QM (incompatible with Schrodinger equation) our theory of them is quite rich and complete now. This just seems rambling and imprecise from Wol…
Neat. I have no trouble believing Stephen Wolfram could be out of touch with the current state of QM given he's been busy with his physics project and what not. And he's a terrible speaker. That podcast was the longest in Mindscape history due to that.
I think part of his view is also partially based on the Wolfram Project multiway causal graph framework and its implications on the measurement problem. It's an interesting podcast if nothing else. Not very comprehensible, but interesting nonetheless.
Re: The need for quantum computers remains small
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
At that time QL Sinclair was a loser. A good computer that never got programs. It was the computer of Lius Torwalds and the reason he had to write himself programs. Without QL Sinclair, we may never had Linux. At my work, I was present when the research on ASAS ( https://skybrary.aero/articles/airborne-separation-assurance... ) led to the idea of PMS ( https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/2021-05/euro... )…
> we may never [have] had Linux. Oh, come on. Linux was a clone of MINIX with a GPL license. If Linus had not written it, somebody else would have; and at worst (if that is worse), we would have all been running FreeBSD now.
Or maybe someone would have come up with something that wasn't Unix clone... Maybe our computing would be in better shape.
Re: The need for quantum computers remains small
#77If you are able of imagining the future, and capable of logical coherent thoughts, the statement "the need for quantum computers remains small" is just... damn narrow-minded and perhaps just plain stupid.
If you can shave off a factor n in O(n^3) then O-B-V-I-O-U-S-L-Y it will change the world. If you don't see the obviousness in this, then why are you working with computers?
Before you hate on me, did you even google "quantum computer"? Did you read the introduction section of the Wikipedia article?
Re: The need for quantum computers remains small
#78Normal computers would have suffered the same fate if they were only good for scientific calculations. Computer revolution was funded by demand in business, gaming and automation. It's the cash flow that funds long term R&D. Not potential benefit. There is no such demand for quantum computers. Everyday problems have too small complexity for them to be useful even if algorithm exists. I suspect that computational bioc…
Classical computers appeared and for the first decade existed purely because of scientific demand. Gaming and business were secondary effects.
Scientific demand is enough to start something, not sustain huge annual investments.
Global supercomputer market is roughly $6-7 billion. Nvidia, AMD together spend more into R&D than the whole market has sales. Scientific use is minuscule compared to business and entertainment needs.
Quantum computers research gets millions or maybe few tens of millions funding. That's not enough.
Re: The need for quantum computers remains small
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drug molecule interactions, simulations for super conductors, etc. Etc.
Drug molecules are much too large for near term QC, let alone the interaction of two of them in a solvent. We're talking thousands of qubits and circuits millions of operations deep.
How do you possibly know the details of a future implementation?
Re: The need for quantum computers remains small
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
QC cant do anything, it has no use cases. And that won't change. Except if you want to generate random numbers. that it can do.
Care to justify?
because Qbits are just random numbers. They want to make u believe that Qbits represent a range of values, which is true in theory, but in reality it's just a plain old single random number. So all QC calculation are basically random + random * random - random = ... random ofc. I think google it's only QC application was a program that generates some random hash. Other than that, QC hasnt done anything else, nor do i believe it can.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2227490-googles-quantum...
Note, it turned out later that classical computers could still do this faster, so, another QC fail.