The quantum computing bubble
1–10 of 144 posts
Re: The quantum computing bubble
#2Link to the actual article by the Oxford Physicist.
Valuation over value.
Re: The quantum computing bubble
#3Sometimes I wonder if we should try building a news site optimised for seeing the effect of appeals to authority.
To write an article for the site, we would need to:
1. Write a headline with no mentions of any experts.
2. Write another headline mentioning at least one expert in it.
3. Write the content without mentioning any experts.
4. Write the content and sprinkle names of experts as needed.
5. Publish.
Now, the reader would then:
1. Be exposed to the no-experts version of the article - both headline and content.
2. Once finished, the reader will be prompted to write their thoughts on the article.
3. Click “Reveal”.
4. The reader would then skim or read the whole article again, but this time it would mention the experts.
5. Prompt the reader to evaluate how their thoughts had changed after reading the expert version of the article.
I’m so gullible, seeing experts in anything especially when names of prestigious institutions or titles are tacked onto them, tend to shut down the reasoning part of my brain altogether.
Bear in mind, the site I proposed is not a place to police how articles should be written; rather, it’s all about increasing its readers’ awareness on how much mentions of an authority can impact their initial reasoning and judgement and sometimes make them stop reasoning at all. My view is that mentions of an authority are useful for calibrating our judgements after we tried to reason on our own but not before that.
And yeah, I have no opinion on the original post. Just like to go off on a tangent once in a while.
Re: The quantum computing bubble
#4> at some point the claims will be found out and the funding will dry up.
Someone hasn't been watching the cryptocurrency markets.
That's partly tongue in cheek. But there are countless examples of the market remaining irrational longer than one can stay solvent.
Witness the continued success of BTC and Ether, amid newer options that outperform them on every tech-related metric, often by many orders of magnitude. I conclude that marketing hype and the first mover advantage form the vast bulk of valuation in a novel tech that people don't understand.
This is not to take away from the author's point at all - I would hope that anyone who invests in quantum computing reads the criticism from an insider who can actually read the papers.
However, as irrational and harmful as it is, I don't expect BTC to drop to zero before the day quantum computing actually does follow through. Rationality really isn't our thing.
Re: The quantum computing bubble
#5Sometimes I wonder if we should try building a news site optimised for seeing the effect of appeals to authority. To write an article for the site, we would need to: 1. Write a headline with no mentions of any experts. 2. Write another headline mentioning at least one expert in it. 3. Write the content without mentioning any experts. 4. Write the content and sprinkle names of experts as needed. 5. Publish. Now, the r…
Having done that, you could then write a paper on your findings. You would then be an expert! You could then rerun the experiment using your paper as the story in order to validate your initial findings…
Re: The quantum computing bubble
#6There’s also billions going into commercial fusion reactors, which haven’t turned net positive yet. The goal of the investment is to build that capability tho, same (I think?) as with quantum computing. Weird critique imo.
Re: The quantum computing bubble
#7Sometimes I wonder if we should try building a news site optimised for seeing the effect of appeals to authority. To write an article for the site, we would need to: 1. Write a headline with no mentions of any experts. 2. Write another headline mentioning at least one expert in it. 3. Write the content without mentioning any experts. 4. Write the content and sprinkle names of experts as needed. 5. Publish. Now, the r…
> 5. Prompt the reader to evaluate how their thoughts had changed after reading the expert version of the article.
Basing the perceived quality of an article on an appeal to authority doesn't make much sense either.
The Royal Society's motto is literally "take nobody's word for it."
Re: The quantum computing bubble
#8I agree: Quantum computing = Quantum quatsch!
Re: The quantum computing bubble
#9> at some point the claims will be found out and the funding will dry up. Someone hasn't been watching the cryptocurrency markets. That's partly tongue in cheek. But there are countless examples of the market remaining irrational longer than one can stay solvent. Witness the continued success of BTC and Ether, amid newer options that outperform them on every tech-related metric, often by many orders of magnitude. I c…
[deleted]
Re: The quantum computing bubble
#10Sometimes I wonder if we should try building a news site optimised for seeing the effect of appeals to authority. To write an article for the site, we would need to: 1. Write a headline with no mentions of any experts. 2. Write another headline mentioning at least one expert in it. 3. Write the content without mentioning any experts. 4. Write the content and sprinkle names of experts as needed. 5. Publish. Now, the r…
I love the idea.
I've always wondered if the format of long form expert opinions could be replaced by a knowledge graph that is independent of the expert.
E.g. instead of article "Economist John rejects minimum wage"
Root node "Minimum wage is not the best solution to problem x" -> because -> , -> because ->
In this way other experts could add to the graph and the differences between different branches of argument could be more easily compared or automatically updated. Articles could still be written, but could reference specific nodes or edges of the graph which adds clarity to the discussion.