4 ms·

The only real usefulness of quantum computers would be the supposed quantum supremacy. IBM not caring about Q supremacy is pure nonsense.

_red 7y ago
>would be the supposed quantum supremacy True. Another way he could have responded is: We don't care if quantum computers actually do anything useful, only that we can use the PR to get positive stock price movement.
- jeffdavis 7y ago
  They could also say "We are scientists doing cool stuff, discovering things, and having fun. Maybe it will be useful someday but we aren't really focusing on that." Why are you attributing some kind of cynical motive?
  - pessimizer 7y ago
    Because it is a job, not a hobby, and is essentially about money. It's not cynical to ascribe venal motivations to employment, and to imply it is is a cheap shot.
    - rbanffy 7y ago
      It's foundational research, not product development. IBM does a lot of research that doesn't have immediate practical applications.
  - The_rationalist 7y ago
    Scientists having fun is nice. But the money could be better allocated at critically useful research areas
    - jeffdavis 7y ago
      Yikes, tough crowd. Quantum computers are a kind of "because it's hard" problem. Some useful discoveries might come out of it by accident even if quantum computers never become practical. And, uh, it's not your money, nor is it mine, so why complain? In the grand universe of wasted resources, quantum computers are probably not where I'd begin making cuts.
    - ineedasername 7y ago
      Lots of very practical & critically useful things can come out the foundational science & engineering required for this sort of research. Just look at the practical applications of various technologies developed to get the Large Hadron Collider up and running. [0] [0] https://kt.cern/cern-technologies-society https://kt.cern/cern-technologies-society
      - The_rationalist 7y ago
        Nice try except quantum computing is not a fundamental science
        ineedasername 7y ago
        It's hard to get more fundamental than studying how quantum properties & effects can be manipulated. But call it what you will: You avoided the issue. Whether or not you use the label "fundamental", the research can absolutely yield practical & critical advancements. Plenty of necessary aspects & engineering of the LHC would be unlikely to fall under your definition of "fundamental", but nonetheless have are part of the benefits realized from those efforts.
        The_rationalist 7y ago
        After 40 years of applied quantum computing we have made no useful discoveries. No surprise since it's applied. 40 years of LHG has yielded so many useful discoveries. If we reallocated quantum computing funding to LHC wouldn't that be more rational? And there are far more useful things to fund than the already useful LHC.

_red 7y ago

>would be the supposed quantum supremacy True. Another way he could have responded is: We don't care if quantum computers actually do anything useful, only that we can use the PR to get positive stock price movement.

jeffdavis 7y ago
They could also say "We are scientists doing cool stuff, discovering things, and having fun. Maybe it will be useful someday but we aren't really focusing on that." Why are you attributing some kind of cynical motive?
- pessimizer 7y ago
  Because it is a job, not a hobby, and is essentially about money. It's not cynical to ascribe venal motivations to employment, and to imply it is is a cheap shot.
  - rbanffy 7y ago
    It's foundational research, not product development. IBM does a lot of research that doesn't have immediate practical applications.
- The_rationalist 7y ago
  Scientists having fun is nice. But the money could be better allocated at critically useful research areas
  - jeffdavis 7y ago
    Yikes, tough crowd. Quantum computers are a kind of "because it's hard" problem. Some useful discoveries might come out of it by accident even if quantum computers never become practical. And, uh, it's not your money, nor is it mine, so why complain? In the grand universe of wasted resources, quantum computers are probably not where I'd begin making cuts.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    Lots of very practical & critically useful things can come out the foundational science & engineering required for this sort of research. Just look at the practical applications of various technologies developed to get the Large Hadron Collider up and running. [0] [0] https://kt.cern/cern-technologies-society https://kt.cern/cern-technologies-society
    - The_rationalist 7y ago
      Nice try except quantum computing is not a fundamental science
      - ineedasername 7y ago
        It's hard to get more fundamental than studying how quantum properties & effects can be manipulated. But call it what you will: You avoided the issue. Whether or not you use the label "fundamental", the research can absolutely yield practical & critical advancements. Plenty of necessary aspects & engineering of the LHC would be unlikely to fall under your definition of "fundamental", but nonetheless have are part of the benefits realized from those efforts.
        The_rationalist 7y ago
        After 40 years of applied quantum computing we have made no useful discoveries. No surprise since it's applied. 40 years of LHG has yielded so many useful discoveries. If we reallocated quantum computing funding to LHC wouldn't that be more rational? And there are far more useful things to fund than the already useful LHC.