3 ms·

At this point yes . We need ~70 years of research to get to something useful ( I asked my professor about this who I studied quantum computing this).

jessriedel 9y ago
This is not a typical view among experts. Most numbers quoted are between 10 and 30 years for commercially useful devices.
- brain5ide 9y ago
  Those quotes have been around for the last 10 to 30 years, however. So 70 is a very sane number.
  - booleandilemma 9y ago
    Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/678/ https://xkcd.com/678/
  - jessriedel 9y ago
    This is simply not true. I'm not talking about the pop science articles you read who find the most outlandish quote they can find. (There are plenty of those now that say 1-3 years.) I'm talking about what the actual typical practitioner says.
  - krastanov 9y ago
    I work in the field and I will have to disagree - 20 years ago nobody serious would have claimed we can build a quantum computer in 10 years. There are very clear levels we need to reach to have something useful (in terms of lifetime of the qubits and number of connected qubits) and there has been extremely clear upward slope on both of those measures over the last 15 years. Extrapolating optimistically from them in 5 years we will have quantum chemistry simulators. Extrapolating pessimistically, it will take 20 or so years.
    - michael_nielsen 9y ago
      Not quite true. I can think of two well funded people in 1995-2000 who either believed (or implied to funders) that scalable quantum computing was plausible within 10 years. But those people were outliers. You're correct that it was an uncommon view, and mainstream consensus in the field was that it was many decades away. The situation today is certainly very different, and people seem much more optimistic.
- Zarath 9y ago
  I honestly cannot remember the last time a new technology hasn't significantly overshot ETAs
  - pdx 9y ago
    Really? How about mapping the human genome?
  - sundarurfriend 9y ago
    That's because with new developments that do get achieved in predicted timelines, the predictions don't get mention because it's only unsurprising ordinary news. Whereas with tantalizing but out of reach technologies, we get repeated "are we there yet" articles, and skepticism makes for more popular journalism. It's a combination of selection bias and the availability heuristic.

jessriedel 9y ago

This is not a typical view among experts. Most numbers quoted are between 10 and 30 years for commercially useful devices.

brain5ide 9y ago
Those quotes have been around for the last 10 to 30 years, however. So 70 is a very sane number.
- booleandilemma 9y ago
  Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/678/ https://xkcd.com/678/
- jessriedel 9y ago
  This is simply not true. I'm not talking about the pop science articles you read who find the most outlandish quote they can find. (There are plenty of those now that say 1-3 years.) I'm talking about what the actual typical practitioner says.
- krastanov 9y ago
  I work in the field and I will have to disagree - 20 years ago nobody serious would have claimed we can build a quantum computer in 10 years. There are very clear levels we need to reach to have something useful (in terms of lifetime of the qubits and number of connected qubits) and there has been extremely clear upward slope on both of those measures over the last 15 years. Extrapolating optimistically from them in 5 years we will have quantum chemistry simulators. Extrapolating pessimistically, it will take 20 or so years.
  - michael_nielsen 9y ago
    Not quite true. I can think of two well funded people in 1995-2000 who either believed (or implied to funders) that scalable quantum computing was plausible within 10 years. But those people were outliers. You're correct that it was an uncommon view, and mainstream consensus in the field was that it was many decades away. The situation today is certainly very different, and people seem much more optimistic.
Zarath 9y ago
I honestly cannot remember the last time a new technology hasn't significantly overshot ETAs
- pdx 9y ago
  Really? How about mapping the human genome?
- sundarurfriend 9y ago
  That's because with new developments that do get achieved in predicted timelines, the predictions don't get mention because it's only unsurprising ordinary news. Whereas with tantalizing but out of reach technologies, we get repeated "are we there yet" articles, and skepticism makes for more popular journalism. It's a combination of selection bias and the availability heuristic.