4 ms·
We don't know. If someone manages to find an algorithm to do such things, it'll be helpful for that. It's as if we're rediscovering the computer itself from the
by gaze 9y ago
We don't know. If someone manages to find an algorithm to do such things, it'll be helpful for that. It's as if we're rediscovering the computer itself from the beginning and we're still not sure what it's good for, but the things we've managed to find algorithms for it appears to be really really good at.
Basically, don't worry too much about it, unless you wish to hunt for such algorithms yourself.
The one thing it's definitely promising for is simulating quantum mechanics... something classical computers are very bad at, and has serious practical use. For this, they will always be very useful.
- akavel 9y agoAlso, apart from inventing/discovering new algorithms, there's another part in inventing how to use them to help in particular "real-world" (or "non-quantum programmer world") problems. So, maybe one of the known algorithms could actually somehow help with "training a RNN", but probably nobody invented a way to rephrase ("refactor") the "training a RNN" problem in a way which could get boosted by one of the known quantum algos (the set of which can be looked at as "the quantum API") yet. Now that I think of it, the few most well known algorithms (like the Shor's one) are probably so because "real world" use cases were found for them, which are understandable to non-quantum engineers (i.e. "factorization of primes"), as opposed to "transforming a hamiltonian foobzdringle into a hilbertian mesoism in laplacian meta-subordinates" :P