4 ms·
You don’t agree with Google’s November paper then I guess? You KNOW what quantum supremacy means. Please don’t nit pick my layman’s description we are all adul
by 6nf 7y ago
You don’t agree with Google’s November paper then I guess?
You KNOW what quantum supremacy means. Please don’t nit pick my layman’s description we are all adults here. You know what I meant.
- lisper 7y agoI'm not taking issue with your definition of quantum supremacy, I'm taking issue with your (implied) definition of "almost useful". Personally, I don't consider the demonstration of quantum supremacy in and of itself to be useful. It is very interesting, but IMHO it is not (yet) fair to say that QCs have done anything useful, even if you hedge with "almost".
- meowface 7y agoEverything you've been posting is technically correct whereas the parent was technically incorrect, but it's still huge progress and an important step. No, they're not at the useful stage yet, but we can see now that it's inevitable, whether it's years or decades away.
- lisper 7y agoYes, it's huge progress, but huge progress != useful. And getting to useful, while very likely a matter of when and not if, is not inevitable. The number of qbits in current technology is measured in the dozens whereas the number of qbits needed to do something useful is likely in the thousands (because error correction will almost certainly be needed). QCs don't scale like CCs do. There could be some pretty significant obstacles between here and useful. C.f. fusion power, which has been 10 years away from being useful for about 40 years now.