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

The quantum computing bubble

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 144 posts

Re: The quantum computing bubble

#71

Post by throw149102 »

One point of interest was the paper on quantum computing applied to quantum chemistry[1]. In that paper, they did not find generic exponential speedup for a list of chemistry problems with current quantum algorithms. There are 3 problems with this: a speedup does not need to be exponential in order to be incredibly valuable; a speedup does not need to be extremely generic, just enough to cover real-world use cases; and quantum algorithms are still in their infancy, and it's unclear how much more we might discover in the next 10-20 years.

Furthermore, the paper itself links to a github repository[2] with a list of papers that either imply or use an exponential advantage in quantum chemistry. Now would be a good time to mention that I am not an expert in chemistry, nor have I read the entirety of this list of papers so I am not in a position to go through each and every one to decide how generic their results are or what the limitations are. Perhaps all these papers have fundamental limitations that prevent it from being useful in normal chemistry, only in weird souped-up problems specifically devised for a quantum advantage.

Either way, this paper is by no means conclusive on the subject. There's a ton of more research to be done in multiple fields to know for sure.

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.02199.pdf [2] https://github.com/seunghoonlee89/Refs_EQA_GSQC

Re: The quantum computing bubble

#72

Post by ak_111 »

Note that he only recently finished his PhD in a tangential area related to Quantum computing, so he is not a giant in a field like say Aronson who I would be interested in knowing what they think on this industry. I do in fact agree with most of the article. However I also think if you measure ratio of scientific/technological impact to funding, I would place Quantum Computing for higher than many other hype bubbles such as crypto, blockchain, web3.

In other words the size of funding QC is getting is nowhere close to the other hype bubbles and there are some significant peer-reviewed results that have been generated from it, so for the time being you can still give it the benefit of the doubt.

For example it has definitely enhanced our understanding of quantum chemistry and computational complexity, and anyone who invests time learning QC will end up having solid new insight about how the world works and deep engineering knowledge of electronics, which you can't say about many other bubbles.

For example, compare how many QC startups YC has funded (I think 0?) compared to blockchain, crypto, AI-assisted medicine and web3. There is no comparison. Picking on QC is far below my list if you want to have a go at hype bubbles.

Re: The quantum computing bubble

#73

Post by marcosdumay »

sweezyjeezy wrote: post #28
meltyness wrote: post #16

I think his model of the situation is short-sighted, to say nothing of the callbacks to that management principle involving transistors. If you're thinking that the whole purpose of QC will be quickly subsumed by wide algorithms with superpolynomial speedup, you might be missing the point. It's about how computers are built, not about stuffing one specific abstraction into another. If suddenly we discover we can buil…

I think most people, including the author, would agree QC should be funded for fundamental research reasons. But that is clearly not the way it is being pitched to VC. Right now there is no clear use-case, that's what I felt he was warning against. If nothing materialises soon, he's probably correct to say this is a bubble.

> Right now there is no clear use-case

Why people keep repeating that? You mean that if somebody creates a machine that can simulate chemistry and materials science in polynomial time, nobody would use it? That's crazy.

Re: The quantum computing bubble

#74

Post by lumost »

throw149102 wrote: post #71

One point of interest was the paper on quantum computing applied to quantum chemistry[1]. In that paper, they did not find generic exponential speedup for a list of chemistry problems with current quantum algorithms. There are 3 problems with this: a speedup does not need to be exponential in order to be incredibly valuable; a speedup does not need to be extremely generic, just enough to cover real-world use cases; a…

The reason exponential speedups are required is due to the extreme cost of quantum computing R&D and extremely limited quantum computers that come out of it.

I can provision 1k CPU based servers or ~20 4x GPU based servers in a cloud computing environment for an hour for <$400. These are mature technologies with massive economies of scale behind them. A quantum computer needs to not only outperform scale out GPU/CPU performance on a particular problem set, it needs to crush it.

Re: The quantum computing bubble

#75

Post by epgui »

sfpotter wrote: post #62
aqme28 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't? The article leads with that argument. "The reality is that none of these companies — or any other quantum computing firm, for that matter — are actually earning any real money." I don't see any argument that the technology is fundamentally unsound or doesn't scale, even though that's an argument I'm pretty amenable to.

"The simple reason for this is that despite years of effort nobody has yet come close to building a quantum machine that is actually capable of solving practical problems. The current devices are so error-prone that any information one tries to process with them will almost instantly degenerate into noise. The problem only grows worse if the computer is scaled up (ie, the number of “qubits” increased)." + 5 subsequen…

It's not clear and obvious that this and the following 5 paragraphs mean that the technology is "fundamentally unsound" either. It's just that there are big problems we haven't yet figured out how to work with.

Though it is true that we don't know the degree to which we will be successful at developing this technology, and we know there are fundamental properties we will need to contend with (for better and for worst), this is entirely consistent with how "early technology" develops.

AFAIK, even "commercially oriented" quantum computing projects are better understood as being in a research stage at this time. When you do research, in general, it feels daunting and it's not at all obvious that things are going to work. (my field is biochem)

Re: The quantum computing bubble

#76

Post by wikfwikf »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #59

All bubbles are not equal in risk, folly, or long term sustainability. In the case of the Internet Bubble stocks were down 78%, but it was not hard to do well in the end given diversification and a long enough horizon. In the case of the Dutch Tulip bubble there was no good ending for anyone except those who got out early. Some bubbles like NFTs generate strong opinions but have yet to have final judgment from histor…

> In the case of the Internet Bubble stocks were down 78%, but it was not hard to do well in the end given diversification and a long enough horizon.

This is untrue. If you were invested in what became the stars of that era: Amazon, Red Hat, Cisco, a few others, you eventually made decent money, although far worse than if you had stayed out and bought the dip.

If you had a diversified portfolio of 'new economy' stocks which didn't include a few winners like this, you might have lost over 95% of your money and never got it back. Lots and lots of stocks simply disappeared or were bought for peanuts. Many others, including lots of very very highly rated ones like Yahoo never exceeded their bubble-era peaks.

Re: The quantum computing bubble

#77

Post by wikfwikf »

oldgradstudent wrote: post #35
dr_dshiv wrote: post #25

I have a fair amount of experience in this space. It’s like, at a vacuum tube era, at best. There is a definite opportunity for advancement, but it is still extremely early. We are building user interfaces that make it easier to “play around” with quantum computing phenomena—especially with music and art—with the idea that our aesthetic sensibilities may help drive discovery.

> It’s like, at a vacuum tube era, at best. How is it even remotely close? Vacuum tubes were a thriving industry, producing many groundbreaking products and services.

They are saying that quantum computing is at the stage that classical computing was at when it still relied on vacuum tubes.

Not that quantum computing is at the same stage as the vacuum tube industry was at at some unspecified time.

Re: The quantum computing bubble

#79

Post by photochemsyn »

This is something of a low-effort article, with a short-sighted focus on immediate profitability. There are many scientific programs that didn't really become private-free-market revenue generators for decades at least (the US space program, for example).

An article with a little more depth might examine the future of trapped-ion quantum computing, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapped_ion_quantum_computer

As far as the 'make money off new drugs' mentality, that's not really where QM chemical simulations in molecular dynamics really seems all that promising - it's more about things like the design of new catalysts to improve the efficiency of various industrial processes.

If QM computation is eventually developed, the devices will almost certainly be large and extremely expensive (kind of like the cutting-edge chip fab machines of today in scale). For most businesses, it's unlikely the benefit of owning one will justify the cost, so it'll probably be a national lab / research center type thing.

Re: The quantum computing bubble

#80

Post by WhitneyLand »

wikfwikf wrote: post #76
WhitneyLand wrote: post #59

All bubbles are not equal in risk, folly, or long term sustainability. In the case of the Internet Bubble stocks were down 78%, but it was not hard to do well in the end given diversification and a long enough horizon. In the case of the Dutch Tulip bubble there was no good ending for anyone except those who got out early. Some bubbles like NFTs generate strong opinions but have yet to have final judgment from histor…

> In the case of the Internet Bubble stocks were down 78%, but it was not hard to do well in the end given diversification and a long enough horizon. This is untrue. If you were invested in what became the stars of that era: Amazon, Red Hat, Cisco, a few others, you eventually made decent money, although far worse than if you had stayed out and bought the dip. If you had a diversified portfolio of 'new economy' stock…

Let me give an example of why I think it’s true, the difference between our opinions may be based on tightening up the premises for “diversified” and “time horizon”

By diversification I’m assuming a NASDQ index fund, which many of the hot new Internet stocks, as well as larger establishes tech companies benefiting from bubble were part of.

If you invested in NASDAQ everything at the absolute worst peak of the bubble: - The initial crash put you at -78% return - It took 21 years to recover all loses and earn a 300% return.

Why do you think that’s not “doing well” for a index fund closely tracking the bubble?

You could say alternative scenarios would’ve done better but that’s always the case.

The main point is, for someone with a long time horizon who was diversified, this turned out way way better than a lot of other bubbles turned out.

Post reply on HN