3 ms·

> Are there problems that the quantum computers of today are actually better at solving than traditional computers? When the first hard disk (IBM RAMAC) was de

> Are there problems that the quantum computers of today are actually better at solving than traditional computers? When the first hard disk (IBM RAMAC) was developed, people drew the same sorts of conclusions. The difference there was that they weren't convinced that the disk would be faster than a secretarial pool. The net was that IBM invented hashing and made it definitively the case that the disk WAS faster. Hopefully, sixty years later, they are able to address your similar concern in a similar way.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
brianpgordon 8y ago
This is a nice story, but the problem is that in this case it's definitely not faster.
- mschaef 8y ago
  The point of the story is that people were saying that in 1953 too... Maybe this new machine is nothing, but we'll see.
tivert 8y ago
> When the first hard disk (IBM RAMAC) was developed, people drew the same sorts of conclusions. The difference there was that they weren't convinced that the disk would be faster than a secretarial pool. The net was that IBM invented hashing and made it definitively the case that the disk WAS faster. Source? The impression that I got at the Computer History Museum was that they had specific performance requirements from a customer that they engineered to.
- mschaef 8y ago
  From here, iirc: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/ibms-early-computers https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/ibms-early-computers Don’t have it with me, or I would check for the specific quote. This has come up previously on HN, and I wrote a few more details back then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16274812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16274812 (Although still not an exact cite. :-( )
nickpsecurity 8y ago
People keep bringing this up. There was at least a theory about what the early computers would be good at that prior methods wouldn't. Then, they hoped they could improve them with research to do more. Even the ENIAC in the 1940's got used as a large calculator for defense applications: https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-the-eniac-computer-1991601 https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-the-eniac-computer-1991... Similarly, you could say what value ARPAnet would provide, disks, email, telephone, and so on. Whereas, using this argument for quantum computers (here) or blockchains (another thread) makes no sense given they aren't doing anything better than existing techniques. They're actually a step back on most metrics. Q is both a research tool and a commercial waste of money until it proves to be better than a classical computer at some practical job. An example where quantum tech was theoretically better from the start was Quantum Key Exchange with modifications on the line detected. Even that goal was easier to solve without quantum methods, though.
- mschaef 8y ago
  > People keep bringing this up. I think the idea that a new technology takes work to provide demonstrable value shouldn't be so surprising. That had to happen with RAMAC and may or may not happen here (or with Blockchain, etc.)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

brianpgordon 8y ago

This is a nice story, but the problem is that in this case it's definitely not faster.

mschaef 8y ago
The point of the story is that people were saying that in 1953 too... Maybe this new machine is nothing, but we'll see.

tivert 8y ago

> When the first hard disk (IBM RAMAC) was developed, people drew the same sorts of conclusions. The difference there was that they weren't convinced that the disk would be faster than a secretarial pool. The net was that IBM invented hashing and made it definitively the case that the disk WAS faster. Source? The impression that I got at the Computer History Museum was that they had specific performance requirements from a customer that they engineered to.

mschaef 8y ago
From here, iirc: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/ibms-early-computers https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/ibms-early-computers Don’t have it with me, or I would check for the specific quote. This has come up previously on HN, and I wrote a few more details back then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16274812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16274812 (Although still not an exact cite. :-( )

nickpsecurity 8y ago

People keep bringing this up. There was at least a theory about what the early computers would be good at that prior methods wouldn't. Then, they hoped they could improve them with research to do more. Even the ENIAC in the 1940's got used as a large calculator for defense applications: https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-the-eniac-computer-1991601 https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-the-eniac-computer-1991... Similarly, you could say what value ARPAnet would provide, disks, email, telephone, and so on. Whereas, using this argument for quantum computers (here) or blockchains (another thread) makes no sense given they aren't doing anything better than existing techniques. They're actually a step back on most metrics. Q is both a research tool and a commercial waste of money until it proves to be better than a classical computer at some practical job. An example where quantum tech was theoretically better from the start was Quantum Key Exchange with modifications on the line detected. Even that goal was easier to solve without quantum methods, though.

mschaef 8y ago
> People keep bringing this up. I think the idea that a new technology takes work to provide demonstrable value shouldn't be so surprising. That had to happen with RAMAC and may or may not happen here (or with Blockchain, etc.)