6 ms·
>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 tha
by _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 agoThey 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 agoBecause 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 agoIt's foundational research, not product development. IBM does a lot of research that doesn't have immediate practical applications.
- The_rationalist 7y agoScientists having fun is nice. But the money could be better allocated at critically useful research areas
- jeffdavis 7y agoYikes, 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 agoLots 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 agoNice try except quantum computing is not a fundamental science
- ineedasername 7y agoIt'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 agoAfter 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.
- ineedasername 7y agoA solid understanding of quantum physics, helped along by research with quantum computing, is part of the foundation for much modern high technology. Current quantum computing research is pioneering better techniques for noise isolation and error correction, which has excellent practical potential as well. My point with the LHC isn't just that it has produced useful things, but that we didn't know exactly that it would do so when it all started. Planning & construction on projects that would eventually form part of the LHC began as early as the late 70's, early 80's, roughly 40 years ago. That too was based on research & engineering that started even earlier. So if we're comparing the LHC and quantum computing, the tech behind the LHC has had more time to be developed and refined. When quantum computing gets to the same level of maturity, it may have just as many positive effects. Even so, arguing about time lines is probably besides the point: different research can take longer or shorter to have a beneficial impact. Maybe there are other things that would benefit more from the same resources, but it's also not something we can know in advance. Plenty of early promising research is chased for years with no result. Some research takes decades for its significance and practical impacts to be felt. We have to pursue a lot of things or we'll never get much of anywhere. I'm also curious though: The argument that quantum computing isn't doing enough, fast enough, has some merit. It's not quite zero sum, but there is a limited amount of money to go around, and maybe it could be better spent. What would be your pet project to advance in place of quantum computing? Personally, I'd want greater focus on energy research. I'm not looking to criticize your choice, I'm genuinely curious.
- philwelch 7y agoLike what, better ad targeting for social media?
- The_rationalist 7y agoLike fighting ageing or ignorance.
- rbanffy 7y agoThere are reasons to believe quantum computers will be really great at optimization problems we would encounter in simulating the molecular machinery of cells.
- The_rationalist 7y agoAh ? Interesting, a source would be welcome.
- rbanffy 7y agoDWave builds machines they say are great for that kind of problem. I would assume, since they are not general purpose quantum computers, this represents a subset of what general purpose quantum machines would be good at. https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1921 https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1921 looks like one such application.