4 ms·

I don't think the QPU is going to happen – quantum processing will be available, but in cloud.

by GolDDranks 9y ago

qaq 9y ago
"There is no cloud it's just someone else's computer "
- SapphireSun 9y ago
  I like to think of the cloud as a ski-rental.
rbanffy 9y ago
And even then, I don't see quantum computing going the same way we went with our machines - QC looks like very batch-oriented with timeshared front-end processors, a bit like some ancient supercomputers.
- cdancette 9y ago
  I think this would enable new usages we can't even imagine yet. This is not a question of wether it is useful now. That's like saying in the 90s, "why do we need 1Gbps internet, 56k is completely enough to check your emails or browse newsgroups." And the ancient supercomputers are now in our pockets
  - jabl 9y ago
    > That's like saying in the 90s, "why do we need 1Gbps internet, 56k is completely enough to check your emails or browse newsgroups." Not really, since QC is not computing like today except a lot faster. It's a very different way for solving some problems. They are not general purpose computing devices. > And the ancient supercomputers are now in our pockets Yeah, about that pocket-sized dilution refrigerator...
    - mtgx 9y ago
      Would you say GPU compute was envisioned in the 80's? I don't think we understand the quantum world and quantum computers well enough today to define 100% of the things we'll be using quantum computers for 50 years from now. We'll start with cryptography, molecule interaction simulations, and some optimization problems, but I think we'll think of new ways to use them in the future.
      - rbanffy 9y ago
        > Would you say GPU compute was envisioned in the 80's? Mostly yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connection_Machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connection_Machine From the 60's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILLIAC_IV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILLIAC_IV The problem with timesharing and QC is that you need to preserve and restore the quantum state of the computer when switching tasks. I am not sure how you would go about with that or if that's even possible.
      - jimktrains2 9y ago
        > Not really, since QC is not computing like today except a lot faster. It's a very different way for solving some problems. They are not general purpose computing devices. > Would you say GPU compute was envisioned in the 80's? Well, GPUs aren't used for general computation either. There are specific sets of problems that they're good at, but we don't run the OS on them.
        rbanffy 9y ago
        > There are specific sets of problems that they're good at, but we don't run the OS on them. Kind of. Xeon Phi's predecessor, the Larrabee, was designed as a GPU. Intel now has a Phi that can be the only CPU in your computer. It all depends on the code that the GPU cores run. Some time ago, while musing about what a modern-day Amiga would be, I'd imagined it'd have a GPU and run all (or, at least most of) its software on it.
      - jabl 9y ago
        > Would you say GPU compute was envisioned in the 80's? Sure, why not? What is a modern GPU if not a bunch (well, a very large bunch!) of vector processors? Vector supercomputers were a thing in the 1970'ies, parallel vector supercomputers in the early 1980'ies. The 1980'ies also saw the beginnings of massively parallel systems (e.g. Connection Machine, Transputer). So take the state of supercomputing in the 1980'ies, extrapolate using Moore's law up to today, and you might arrive at something quite close to a GPU chip. Now, that this chip full of vector processors would be a side-effect of the $$$ available for graphics rendering, largely for entertainment purposes, is probably a historical fluke few would have predicted. But my point was that Quantum Computing really is different. It's not a general purpose computing method (in the sense of Turing completeness etc.), and AFAIK so far all attempts at it require very low temperatures in order to drive down thermal fluctuations. Sub-K refrigerators have advanced considerably in the past few decades, but still it's far away from something portable. > I don't think we understand the quantum world and quantum computers well enough today to define 100% of the things we'll be using quantum computers for 50 years from now. We'll start with cryptography, molecule interaction simulations, and some optimization problems, but I think we'll think of new ways to use them in the future. Oh, absolutely. I'm just not convinced it'll be something every Tom, Dick, and Harry will use to go about their daily lives, even 50 years from now.
  - snvzz 9y ago
    >And the ancient supercomputers are now in our pockets Actually, my cheap smartphone is orders of magnitude faster than the ancient supercomputers.
    - jimktrains2 9y ago
      And yet the UI is still laggy :-\
      - mikeash 9y ago
        They have to do a lot more work to render that UI. The framebuffer on an iPhone X is larger than the entire main memory of the Cray 1!
      - snvzz 9y ago
        Mostly a software issue.
- smichel17 9y ago
  To me, this is reminiscent of a time when people never thought we'd own personal computers because "what's the use?" I'm putting my bets on the technology making its way into costumer products as it matures.
  - chasil 9y ago
    Not if the device has to be at absolute zero, it's not. I don't see that requirement relaxing in the next ten years.

I don't think the QPU is going to happen – quantum processing will be available, but in cloud.

qaq 9y ago

"There is no cloud it's just someone else's computer "

SapphireSun 9y ago
I like to think of the cloud as a ski-rental.

rbanffy 9y ago

And even then, I don't see quantum computing going the same way we went with our machines - QC looks like very batch-oriented with timeshared front-end processors, a bit like some ancient supercomputers.

cdancette 9y ago
I think this would enable new usages we can't even imagine yet. This is not a question of wether it is useful now. That's like saying in the 90s, "why do we need 1Gbps internet, 56k is completely enough to check your emails or browse newsgroups." And the ancient supercomputers are now in our pockets
- jabl 9y ago
  > That's like saying in the 90s, "why do we need 1Gbps internet, 56k is completely enough to check your emails or browse newsgroups." Not really, since QC is not computing like today except a lot faster. It's a very different way for solving some problems. They are not general purpose computing devices. > And the ancient supercomputers are now in our pockets Yeah, about that pocket-sized dilution refrigerator...
  - mtgx 9y ago
    Would you say GPU compute was envisioned in the 80's? I don't think we understand the quantum world and quantum computers well enough today to define 100% of the things we'll be using quantum computers for 50 years from now. We'll start with cryptography, molecule interaction simulations, and some optimization problems, but I think we'll think of new ways to use them in the future.
    - rbanffy 9y ago
      > Would you say GPU compute was envisioned in the 80's? Mostly yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connection_Machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connection_Machine From the 60's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILLIAC_IV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILLIAC_IV The problem with timesharing and QC is that you need to preserve and restore the quantum state of the computer when switching tasks. I am not sure how you would go about with that or if that's even possible.
    - jimktrains2 9y ago
      > Not really, since QC is not computing like today except a lot faster. It's a very different way for solving some problems. They are not general purpose computing devices. > Would you say GPU compute was envisioned in the 80's? Well, GPUs aren't used for general computation either. There are specific sets of problems that they're good at, but we don't run the OS on them.
      - rbanffy 9y ago
        > There are specific sets of problems that they're good at, but we don't run the OS on them. Kind of. Xeon Phi's predecessor, the Larrabee, was designed as a GPU. Intel now has a Phi that can be the only CPU in your computer. It all depends on the code that the GPU cores run. Some time ago, while musing about what a modern-day Amiga would be, I'd imagined it'd have a GPU and run all (or, at least most of) its software on it.
    - jabl 9y ago
      > Would you say GPU compute was envisioned in the 80's? Sure, why not? What is a modern GPU if not a bunch (well, a very large bunch!) of vector processors? Vector supercomputers were a thing in the 1970'ies, parallel vector supercomputers in the early 1980'ies. The 1980'ies also saw the beginnings of massively parallel systems (e.g. Connection Machine, Transputer). So take the state of supercomputing in the 1980'ies, extrapolate using Moore's law up to today, and you might arrive at something quite close to a GPU chip. Now, that this chip full of vector processors would be a side-effect of the $$$ available for graphics rendering, largely for entertainment purposes, is probably a historical fluke few would have predicted. But my point was that Quantum Computing really is different. It's not a general purpose computing method (in the sense of Turing completeness etc.), and AFAIK so far all attempts at it require very low temperatures in order to drive down thermal fluctuations. Sub-K refrigerators have advanced considerably in the past few decades, but still it's far away from something portable. > I don't think we understand the quantum world and quantum computers well enough today to define 100% of the things we'll be using quantum computers for 50 years from now. We'll start with cryptography, molecule interaction simulations, and some optimization problems, but I think we'll think of new ways to use them in the future. Oh, absolutely. I'm just not convinced it'll be something every Tom, Dick, and Harry will use to go about their daily lives, even 50 years from now.
- snvzz 9y ago
  >And the ancient supercomputers are now in our pockets Actually, my cheap smartphone is orders of magnitude faster than the ancient supercomputers.
  - jimktrains2 9y ago
    And yet the UI is still laggy :-\
    - mikeash 9y ago
      They have to do a lot more work to render that UI. The framebuffer on an iPhone X is larger than the entire main memory of the Cray 1!
    - snvzz 9y ago
      Mostly a software issue.
smichel17 9y ago
To me, this is reminiscent of a time when people never thought we'd own personal computers because "what's the use?" I'm putting my bets on the technology making its way into costumer products as it matures.
- chasil 9y ago
  Not if the device has to be at absolute zero, it's not. I don't see that requirement relaxing in the next ten years.