3 ms·

> among some of the most complex pieces of engineering Do you think it will end up in the "20 years from now" category like many other technologies? I'm on the

> among some of the most complex pieces of engineering Do you think it will end up in the "20 years from now" category like many other technologies? I'm on the fence regarding how fast we can actually advance, QC is tough. I've seen the same things said about fusion energy. Fusion is fairly simple, you can do it in your garage right now if you were so inclined, however getting net positive output is truly pushing the limits of what we know and can build. Quantum Computers have far more going on in comparison.

reikonomusha 6y ago
Right now QCs are advancing. It’s possible to forever advance but still be going up against an unfavorable asymptote over which you’re unable to cross, of course, but year after year, qubit fidelities are increasing, error rates are dropping, qubit counts are increasing, and the zoo of quantum technologies (superconducting qubits, ions, neutral atoms, photons, and silicon dots... among others) are blossoming. I’m “bullish” on the whole thing. In my opinion, it would be hugely unwise for anybody in the field right now to call it quits without seeing the technology through further. There are too many “interesting” developments happening. I think that in about a year we will know the true nature of the Google supremacy claims as experts from many disciplines both stew and weigh in on the matter. If supremacy (continues to) hold up, that would be evidence against the “20 years away” sentiment. I agree with what you said, QC has a lot more going on / going for it than fusion does. They both still reside in roughly the same “technological class”, but QC at least seems to be improving regularly with a combination of steady engineering as well as scientific breakthroughs.
roenxi 6y ago
Sometimes stuff that is 20 years from now happens in 20 years. They're up past 50 qbits and it looks like it might be another exponential growth process with doubling time ~4 years [0]. [0] https://s3.amazonaws.com/cbi-research-portal-uploads/2019/01/14180930/quantum-computing-qubit-timeline-1024x768.png https://s3.amazonaws.com/cbi-research-portal-uploads/2019/01...
- fsh 6y ago
  Counting qubits is not a useful metric. Google actually had to go back down from 72 to 53 in order to get their quantum supremacy experiment working. Also none of these machines are error-corrected, so they cannot run useful quantum algorithms such as Shor's or Grover's algorithm. It is still an open question whether large error-corrected quantum computers are at all possible.

reikonomusha 6y ago

Right now QCs are advancing. It’s possible to forever advance but still be going up against an unfavorable asymptote over which you’re unable to cross, of course, but year after year, qubit fidelities are increasing, error rates are dropping, qubit counts are increasing, and the zoo of quantum technologies (superconducting qubits, ions, neutral atoms, photons, and silicon dots... among others) are blossoming. I’m “bullish” on the whole thing. In my opinion, it would be hugely unwise for anybody in the field right now to call it quits without seeing the technology through further. There are too many “interesting” developments happening. I think that in about a year we will know the true nature of the Google supremacy claims as experts from many disciplines both stew and weigh in on the matter. If supremacy (continues to) hold up, that would be evidence against the “20 years away” sentiment. I agree with what you said, QC has a lot more going on / going for it than fusion does. They both still reside in roughly the same “technological class”, but QC at least seems to be improving regularly with a combination of steady engineering as well as scientific breakthroughs.

roenxi 6y ago

Sometimes stuff that is 20 years from now happens in 20 years. They're up past 50 qbits and it looks like it might be another exponential growth process with doubling time ~4 years [0]. [0] https://s3.amazonaws.com/cbi-research-portal-uploads/2019/01/14180930/quantum-computing-qubit-timeline-1024x768.png https://s3.amazonaws.com/cbi-research-portal-uploads/2019/01...

fsh 6y ago
Counting qubits is not a useful metric. Google actually had to go back down from 72 to 53 in order to get their quantum supremacy experiment working. Also none of these machines are error-corrected, so they cannot run useful quantum algorithms such as Shor's or Grover's algorithm. It is still an open question whether large error-corrected quantum computers are at all possible.