3 ms·

The author's critique is based on a wrong understanding of the funding process in my opinion, as the funding of this project is not the result of a unilateral d

The author's critique is based on a wrong understanding of the funding process in my opinion, as the funding of this project is not the result of a unilateral decision of the European Commission, but of a community- and science-led effort where many initiatives across Europe competed for the funding. That the commission selected the Quantum Computing project was largely due to the very convincing and sound proposal, which was written collaboratively and with the support of almost all the relevant research groups in that domain in Europe (e.g CEA Saclay, ETH Zürich, TU Delft, University of Innsbruck, Research Centre Jülich and many more). If critique is voiced (and this is absolutely legitimate), it should at least be based on a basic understanding of the underlying funding mechanisms, which I think is not the case in this article.

acqq 10y ago
I understand that you are aware of the process of the competition, I'd however like to read some meaningful response to the questions asked, like, what quantum computing has to do with the cloud and big data at all (as the funding comes from these goals), and the dubious "security" claims.
- ThePhysicist 10y ago
  Quantum Computing capabilities will probably delivered through the cloud, as buying quantum computers will not be viable for many organizations in the near future (due to high cost / maintenance effort ). Quantum Computing has many potential uses in Big Data, e.g. in biology but also combinatorics (see e.g. Google's or Microsoft work on this, or search online for "Quantum Algorithm Zoo"). Security claims are mostly related to quantum-based secure communication and key distribution, which are technologies that provably work and are already being transformed into products right now. Breaking security (e.g. by efficient prime factoring) is not of big interest to most researchers, as this is more something that nation states might be interested in. Everyone is aware of the fact that we don't yet have a full understanding of quantum algorithms and the computational power of quantum computers, what's clear though is that classical computers have certain limitations in various domains that can be overcome by quantum computers. What everyone agrees on is that quantum computers will not replace classical computers but will supplement them in certain niches. Not sure if this answers all points, hope it clarifies a bit the motivations behind quantum computing though.
jhayward 10y ago
It seems unlikely that the author, who is on the faculty of Eindhoven University of Technology, would be unaware of how the funding of a major project in his field works. Why do you think that is the case?
- ThePhysicist 10y ago
  Because he does not seem to have knowledge of the decision process and the different actors involved, which is why he puts up several conjectures , such as that the people involved in the funding of this project are either malicious or stupid. I just really don't like this way of arguing, and I think it does a large injustice to most of the people involved, many of which are excellent scientists that have put lots of work into their winning proposal. Claiming that they are driven by greed or are selling "snake oil" is very unfair and also a bit ridiculous: The funding process was very transparent and open to debate, and there would surely have been a way for the author to voice his critique through an official channel, especially if he is a faculty member of a European University. To me it seems that he's just unhappy that the funding didn't go to his department, and instead of interacting with people in a constructive way (or better yet, get people from the crypto community together to write a proposal of their own) he just belittles the people involved in this project. This isn't scientific debating, it's just ranting.

acqq 10y ago

I understand that you are aware of the process of the competition, I'd however like to read some meaningful response to the questions asked, like, what quantum computing has to do with the cloud and big data at all (as the funding comes from these goals), and the dubious "security" claims.

ThePhysicist 10y ago
Quantum Computing capabilities will probably delivered through the cloud, as buying quantum computers will not be viable for many organizations in the near future (due to high cost / maintenance effort ). Quantum Computing has many potential uses in Big Data, e.g. in biology but also combinatorics (see e.g. Google's or Microsoft work on this, or search online for "Quantum Algorithm Zoo"). Security claims are mostly related to quantum-based secure communication and key distribution, which are technologies that provably work and are already being transformed into products right now. Breaking security (e.g. by efficient prime factoring) is not of big interest to most researchers, as this is more something that nation states might be interested in. Everyone is aware of the fact that we don't yet have a full understanding of quantum algorithms and the computational power of quantum computers, what's clear though is that classical computers have certain limitations in various domains that can be overcome by quantum computers. What everyone agrees on is that quantum computers will not replace classical computers but will supplement them in certain niches. Not sure if this answers all points, hope it clarifies a bit the motivations behind quantum computing though.

jhayward 10y ago

It seems unlikely that the author, who is on the faculty of Eindhoven University of Technology, would be unaware of how the funding of a major project in his field works. Why do you think that is the case?

ThePhysicist 10y ago
Because he does not seem to have knowledge of the decision process and the different actors involved, which is why he puts up several conjectures , such as that the people involved in the funding of this project are either malicious or stupid. I just really don't like this way of arguing, and I think it does a large injustice to most of the people involved, many of which are excellent scientists that have put lots of work into their winning proposal. Claiming that they are driven by greed or are selling "snake oil" is very unfair and also a bit ridiculous: The funding process was very transparent and open to debate, and there would surely have been a way for the author to voice his critique through an official channel, especially if he is a faculty member of a European University. To me it seems that he's just unhappy that the funding didn't go to his department, and instead of interacting with people in a constructive way (or better yet, get people from the crypto community together to write a proposal of their own) he just belittles the people involved in this project. This isn't scientific debating, it's just ranting.