9 ms·

D-Wave announces general availability of first quantum computer for business

128 points by lelf 6y ago

hikerclimb 6y ago
When can I use one?
IncRnd 6y ago
With the D-Wave flavor of quantum computers, it is like solving every issue using a traveling salesman algorithm. It can be done, but you aren't using a general purpose quantum computer to do so.
- 21eleven 6y ago
  So it is more efficient at exploring the solution territory of traveling salesman type problems than classical computers?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - reikonomusha 6y ago
    It has not been shown that it solves QUBO/NP hard problems any faster asymptotically.
  - pyk 6y ago
    I would safely say that it does not solve TSP faster than the best TSP code available - Concorde. More info here, and note there is an iOS app too (Concorde TSP on the App Store) that you can play with that solves TSP to optimality: http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/tsp/concorde.html http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/tsp/concorde.html
- reikonomusha 6y ago
  More specifically, just to elaborate on your point, it purports to solve certain “quadratic unconstrained binary optimization” (QUBO) problems [1]. It’s not a “programmable computer” in the traditional sense we think. It’s more “tune a bunch of knobs and press ‘go’.” Quantum computers made by Rigetti, Google, and IBM are all programmable with some manner of programming language, and not coincidentally, the number of qubits is two orders of magnitude fewer. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_unconstrained_binary_optimization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_unconstrained_bina...
  - IncRnd 6y ago
    Yes. That is my point. I meant that it is not a general purpose quantum computer. There is no general purpose quantum computer that has 5,000 qubits. The D-Wave machines use quantum annealing. My reference was to the probabalistic gpc algorithm for solving TSP using annealing.
    - core-questions 6y ago
      It performs computations; it does so using quantum effects; therefore it is a quantum computer. Every single thread that discusses D-Wave ends up with this same talking point about "universal" quantum computing. Yes, it's not yet another vaporware gate-model QC toy like Rigetti or Google have; it's a very specific sort of accelerator, somewhat akin to a GPU or a vector processor - not in terms of what it does, but in terms of requiring specific programming to make it useful. It's simply a vastly different architecture than gate-model QC: in many ways, it's a descendant of the analogue computers of the 60s and 70s. The key differentiator here is that they've been able to scale their model from a couple hundred qubits to >5000, in production for anyone to use online. If you're a mathematician and you can actually model your problems this way, they have a nice SDK and it's very usable. There's every reason to assume that they'll have 10k qubits with even more connectivity in a few years, and they have this hybrid solver thing which takes in 10k+ variables already, so it's clear they believe in the problem model itself. I just wish I could make it do more - my layman's interest has only taken me far enough to get a basic idea of what's going on for curiosity's sake. I think you need to be a mathematician in order to be able to do anything serious with it, right now.
      - IncRnd 6y ago
        D-Wave doesn't make a general purpose quantum computer. The sense of that statement is that it cannot run Shor's algorithm, though it can factor integers, for example.
        core-questions 6y ago
        Are you a bot? I'm literally responding to this exact criticism. Yes, it's not a general purpose QC. Does that somehow make it (a real product you can use) less useful than a hypothetical QC from some other company that doesn't actually exist yet? This is like complaining about GPUs not being general purpose. Sure, that's a criticism, but it's not actually that valid.
symplee 6y ago
Anyone catch the price? Or is this one of those "contact sales" products...
- reikonomusha 6y ago
  You can’t just buy the machine like any other COTS product. You typically need a team of PhD scientists to operate it as well. I think D-Wave has also gone the way of providing it as a cloud product with their ‘Leap’ service.
  - discordance 6y ago
    otherwise known as PhDaaS
  - api 6y ago
    You needed a bunch of Ph.Ds to operate early digital computers too. You didn’t just unbox one of those and start doing stuff. This is probably the 1930s of quantum computing.
    - boothby 6y ago
      If I know my history,* the first programmable classical computer was made in 1941; we had the D-Wave One programmable quantum computer in 2011. So... the 50s? * I don't, so I read a Wikipedia article or two
  - inasio 6y ago
    Also available, I think, on Amazon Bracket (and perhaps on Azure Quantum as well)
  - boothby 6y ago
    Last I heard (I work there, but not in hardware) it takes a couple of technicians a few weeks to install the machine onsite, but after that, they're extremely low maintenance. The skill required to use them "locally" is quite the same as using them on the cloud, and we regularly have undergrad co-ops get up to speed using them. No PhDs required. That said, we're much more focused on cloud sales; under that model, big customers get dedicated resources and everybody gets access to machines just about as fast as we make them.
arcticbull 6y ago
I believe in quantum computing in the long run, I took some graduate math classes on the subject in college; I'm at least passingly familiar with the principals, so the following isn't really coming from a totally un-informed perspective: With regards to the D-Wave systems in particular, are these actually faster than solving the problems with a classical approach? There's no benchmarks, no numbers, nothing -- just a customer list. A customer list whose engineering offices want to look hip. I mean, VW, Accenture and Save-on-Foods? I can't help but feel like if it did anything even a hair better than classical computers, the customer list would include every FAANG. D-Wave feels a bit like a blockchain company. Is it (better|faster)? Sir, it's got them magic of (qbits|blockchain)... I don't understand your question.
- howlgarnish 6y ago
  Until there is an undisputed demonstration of quantum supremacy [1], which at last check there isn't, then no, these (or any other quantum computer) is not faster than classical approaches. The reasons companies are investing in these is R&D, or in more capitalist terms, FOMO: if quantum computing does turn out to offer an edge someday, you want to be able to make use of it fast, instead of scrambling to catch up. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy
  - trevyn 6y ago
    Quantum can be still be faster/more powerful per dollar than classical without achieving supremacy, right? There are a lot of big problems that are tractable on classical, but if they become orders of magnitude cheaper on quantum, that's still a great win.
    - reikonomusha 6y ago
      Usually this is termed “quantum advantage”, when it’s better than classical at some commercial metric that “matters”.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
oefrha 6y ago
Haven’t followed the D-Wave story for years... So, aside from quantum annealing vs “actual” quantum computing, has it been conclusively decided that D-Wave speedup is of a quantum nature?
- boothby 6y ago
  We don't have a theoretical proof of a superpolynomial speedup on your favorite problem, no. But as a dear friend and colleague is fond of saying, "it works in theory -- but does it work in practice?" Not your favorite problem; but one capability we've added recently is the ability to sample Ising problems with a nonzero transverse field. I'm yet unaware of a classical algorithm that can efficiently approximate this problem, though that isn't a hot research problem at the moment. The "of a quantum nature" question has been affirmed rather conclusively. Our qubits are capable of entanglement and cotunelling (you may recall a "billion times speedup" result which got way overhyped -- the actual nugget there was a demonstration that groups of 8 qubits could cotunnel to find solutions that were "hidden" from general-purpose Ising solvers), and for example, when we simulate materials which should exhibit quantum properties, we see those properties emerge without any sort of "fine tuning" aside from compensation for known irregularities.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    > but does it work in practice? So does it? Specificly is there a problem that businesses want to solve, that your device solves, where it is cheaper to buy your device (regardless of whether or not quantum magic is happening) than it is to buy a standard server and do the problem classically? This should be an easy question to answer if your device actually works, pragmatically speaking. Edit: i just RTFA'd (yeah i know im terrible), the article is claiming some practical speedups. I guess time will tell how well that pans out in practise as more customers try it on more things.
robot 6y ago
The announcement reads like the days of the first regular computer release. I wonder if there will be a personal quantum computer, and then a quantum mobile phone.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  The negativity sounds similar to me ...
jamespetercook 6y ago
Are these companies purchasing D-Wave computers or just renting compute time on them? The latter makes more financial sense to me
- madengr 6y ago
  I’m wager the NSA has one on-site.
aborsy 6y ago
I wonder what you could do with 50 qbits. Factoring 15=3*5? DW’s few thousands bits are not general purposes and error free.
- upofadown 6y ago
  The D-wave system is not suitable for factoring problems. AFAIK, no one has demonstrated the factoring of 15 using Shor's algorithm in a way that did not assume the answer.
  - boothby 6y ago
    https://www.dwavesys.com/sites/default/files/14-1002A_B_tr_Boosting_integer_factorization_via_quantum_annealing_offsets.pdf https://www.dwavesys.com/sites/default/files/14-1002A_B_tr_B... Granted, factoring isn't the best use of our hardware, but as of 4 years ago, we were hitting 80% success rate on 10-bit semiprimes without baked-in knowledge of the answer. Doesn't need Shor's: we just implement a multiplication circuit as an Ising problem, clamp the outputs, anneal and read off the inputs.
- jepler 6y ago
  Apparently prime factoring has been performed on d-wave hardware. However, it's not clear to me that this leads to something useful. It's not Grover/Shor's algorithm, it's something else. Based on a quick scan of this presentation, I don't see what the claim is as far as the scaling law in space or time for the general factorization of biprimes problem. https://www.dwavesys.com/sites/default/files/32_Thurs_AM_Purdue_Britt.pdf https://www.dwavesys.com/sites/default/files/32_Thurs_AM_Pur...
  - jepler 6y ago
    Ah found the "real" paper. The authors don't know how the algorithm scales either: "Finally, we note that while our demonstrations of factoring have made use of currently available quantum annealers, there is an outstanding question regarding the asymptotic complexity for this approach." https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.02733.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.02733.pdf and go on to talk about the "minimum spectral gap between the ground and first-excited states of the underlying time-dependent Hamiltonian" which might as well be something spoken in the engineering section of the Voyager to me.
cinquemb 6y ago
How does this compare to the Google Sycamore quantum processor? Would be cool if one could use this to do Hartree-Fock how google layed out [0] with the qubits to compute a bunch of binding energies for a matrix of different elements and molecules and use those to find activation coefficients on a classical computer. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.04174 https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.04174
- nabla9 6y ago
  D-Wave machines are quantum annealing machines, not really a quantum computers like Sycamore. In other words it's machine that can solve combinatorial optimization problems and nothing else.
fefe23 6y ago
Why would anyone be interested in what D-Wave has to say? Their previous "quantum computer" wasn't actually one, so why would I even waste time finding out if this one is?
unnouinceput 6y ago
Soo, 5000 qbits, ey? Then why are not those D-Wave already owning all the bitcoins in the world? I mean the biggest encryption used by wallets are protected by 4096 bit length, which is just a shy below 5000. Isn't quantum suppose to fly in microseconds at cracking public key encryption for that length? I call this snake oil.
- plantain 6y ago
  It's quantum annealer, not a universal gate system https://medium.com/quantum-bits/what-s-the-difference-between-quantum-annealing-and-universal-gate-quantum-computers-c5e5099175a1 https://medium.com/quantum-bits/what-s-the-difference-betwee...
- danbruc 6y ago
  The number of bits in an encryption key and the number of qubits in a quantum computer trying to break it are not related in general and even if they are related, the relation is not necessarily a linear relation. Also quantum computers do not in general offer an advantage when it comes to breaking encryption keys. They do, for example, for RSA because it relies on integer factorization and there is a faster quantum algorithm than a classical one, they do not - as far as we know - for AES for example.
easytiger 6y ago
> Accenture, a leading global professional services company, is exploring quantum, quantum-inspired, and hybrid solutions to develop applications across industries. Accenture recently conducted a series of business experiments with a banking client to pilot quantum applications for currency arbitrage, credit scoring, and trading optimization, successfully mapping computationally challenging business problems to quantum formulations, enabling quantum readiness I'd love to know more about that... Incredibly dubious on the claims
cortexio 6y ago
quantum computing is a big fad. You cant do anything with a quantum pc except generate random numbers/bytes. If you think something can be in 2 states at the same time, you're delusional. I dont even know how you begin to believe in quantum entanglement. big yikes. If you have something to say, tell me 1 example of something they actually built with a quantum pc and that's not a random number generator. And if you say encryption, it needs to be decryptable, and if you say hashing, then the hashes need to able to be checked by a quatum pc. All i can find is articles saying X use-cases for quantum pcs in the future... Like we have quantum computers now... but they cant find use cases for it, because... there are none. It's useless Also, just found these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

128 points by lelf 6y ago

When can I use one?

With the D-Wave flavor of quantum computers, it is like solving every issue using a traveling salesman algorithm. It can be done, but you aren't using a general purpose quantum computer to do so.

21eleven 6y ago
So it is more efficient at exploring the solution territory of traveling salesman type problems than classical computers?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- reikonomusha 6y ago
  It has not been shown that it solves QUBO/NP hard problems any faster asymptotically.
- pyk 6y ago
  I would safely say that it does not solve TSP faster than the best TSP code available - Concorde. More info here, and note there is an iOS app too (Concorde TSP on the App Store) that you can play with that solves TSP to optimality: http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/tsp/concorde.html http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/tsp/concorde.html
reikonomusha 6y ago
More specifically, just to elaborate on your point, it purports to solve certain “quadratic unconstrained binary optimization” (QUBO) problems [1]. It’s not a “programmable computer” in the traditional sense we think. It’s more “tune a bunch of knobs and press ‘go’.” Quantum computers made by Rigetti, Google, and IBM are all programmable with some manner of programming language, and not coincidentally, the number of qubits is two orders of magnitude fewer. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_unconstrained_binary_optimization https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_unconstrained_bina...
- IncRnd 6y ago
  Yes. That is my point. I meant that it is not a general purpose quantum computer. There is no general purpose quantum computer that has 5,000 qubits. The D-Wave machines use quantum annealing. My reference was to the probabalistic gpc algorithm for solving TSP using annealing.
  - core-questions 6y ago
    It performs computations; it does so using quantum effects; therefore it is a quantum computer. Every single thread that discusses D-Wave ends up with this same talking point about "universal" quantum computing. Yes, it's not yet another vaporware gate-model QC toy like Rigetti or Google have; it's a very specific sort of accelerator, somewhat akin to a GPU or a vector processor - not in terms of what it does, but in terms of requiring specific programming to make it useful. It's simply a vastly different architecture than gate-model QC: in many ways, it's a descendant of the analogue computers of the 60s and 70s. The key differentiator here is that they've been able to scale their model from a couple hundred qubits to >5000, in production for anyone to use online. If you're a mathematician and you can actually model your problems this way, they have a nice SDK and it's very usable. There's every reason to assume that they'll have 10k qubits with even more connectivity in a few years, and they have this hybrid solver thing which takes in 10k+ variables already, so it's clear they believe in the problem model itself. I just wish I could make it do more - my layman's interest has only taken me far enough to get a basic idea of what's going on for curiosity's sake. I think you need to be a mathematician in order to be able to do anything serious with it, right now.
    - IncRnd 6y ago
      D-Wave doesn't make a general purpose quantum computer. The sense of that statement is that it cannot run Shor's algorithm, though it can factor integers, for example.
      - core-questions 6y ago
        Are you a bot? I'm literally responding to this exact criticism. Yes, it's not a general purpose QC. Does that somehow make it (a real product you can use) less useful than a hypothetical QC from some other company that doesn't actually exist yet? This is like complaining about GPUs not being general purpose. Sure, that's a criticism, but it's not actually that valid.

symplee 6y ago

Anyone catch the price? Or is this one of those "contact sales" products...

reikonomusha 6y ago
You can’t just buy the machine like any other COTS product. You typically need a team of PhD scientists to operate it as well. I think D-Wave has also gone the way of providing it as a cloud product with their ‘Leap’ service.
- discordance 6y ago
  otherwise known as PhDaaS
- api 6y ago
  You needed a bunch of Ph.Ds to operate early digital computers too. You didn’t just unbox one of those and start doing stuff. This is probably the 1930s of quantum computing.
  - boothby 6y ago
    If I know my history,* the first programmable classical computer was made in 1941; we had the D-Wave One programmable quantum computer in 2011. So... the 50s? * I don't, so I read a Wikipedia article or two
- inasio 6y ago
  Also available, I think, on Amazon Bracket (and perhaps on Azure Quantum as well)
- boothby 6y ago
  Last I heard (I work there, but not in hardware) it takes a couple of technicians a few weeks to install the machine onsite, but after that, they're extremely low maintenance. The skill required to use them "locally" is quite the same as using them on the cloud, and we regularly have undergrad co-ops get up to speed using them. No PhDs required. That said, we're much more focused on cloud sales; under that model, big customers get dedicated resources and everybody gets access to machines just about as fast as we make them.

arcticbull 6y ago

I believe in quantum computing in the long run, I took some graduate math classes on the subject in college; I'm at least passingly familiar with the principals, so the following isn't really coming from a totally un-informed perspective: With regards to the D-Wave systems in particular, are these actually faster than solving the problems with a classical approach? There's no benchmarks, no numbers, nothing -- just a customer list. A customer list whose engineering offices want to look hip. I mean, VW, Accenture and Save-on-Foods? I can't help but feel like if it did anything even a hair better than classical computers, the customer list would include every FAANG. D-Wave feels a bit like a blockchain company. Is it (better|faster)? Sir, it's got them magic of (qbits|blockchain)... I don't understand your question.

howlgarnish 6y ago
Until there is an undisputed demonstration of quantum supremacy [1], which at last check there isn't, then no, these (or any other quantum computer) is not faster than classical approaches. The reasons companies are investing in these is R&D, or in more capitalist terms, FOMO: if quantum computing does turn out to offer an edge someday, you want to be able to make use of it fast, instead of scrambling to catch up. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy
- trevyn 6y ago
  Quantum can be still be faster/more powerful per dollar than classical without achieving supremacy, right? There are a lot of big problems that are tractable on classical, but if they become orders of magnitude cheaper on quantum, that's still a great win.
  - reikonomusha 6y ago
    Usually this is termed “quantum advantage”, when it’s better than classical at some commercial metric that “matters”.
- tsimionescu 6y ago

oefrha 6y ago

Haven’t followed the D-Wave story for years... So, aside from quantum annealing vs “actual” quantum computing, has it been conclusively decided that D-Wave speedup is of a quantum nature?

boothby 6y ago
We don't have a theoretical proof of a superpolynomial speedup on your favorite problem, no. But as a dear friend and colleague is fond of saying, "it works in theory -- but does it work in practice?" Not your favorite problem; but one capability we've added recently is the ability to sample Ising problems with a nonzero transverse field. I'm yet unaware of a classical algorithm that can efficiently approximate this problem, though that isn't a hot research problem at the moment. The "of a quantum nature" question has been affirmed rather conclusively. Our qubits are capable of entanglement and cotunelling (you may recall a "billion times speedup" result which got way overhyped -- the actual nugget there was a demonstration that groups of 8 qubits could cotunnel to find solutions that were "hidden" from general-purpose Ising solvers), and for example, when we simulate materials which should exhibit quantum properties, we see those properties emerge without any sort of "fine tuning" aside from compensation for known irregularities.
- bawolff 6y ago
  > but does it work in practice? So does it? Specificly is there a problem that businesses want to solve, that your device solves, where it is cheaper to buy your device (regardless of whether or not quantum magic is happening) than it is to buy a standard server and do the problem classically? This should be an easy question to answer if your device actually works, pragmatically speaking. Edit: i just RTFA'd (yeah i know im terrible), the article is claiming some practical speedups. I guess time will tell how well that pans out in practise as more customers try it on more things.

robot 6y ago

The announcement reads like the days of the first regular computer release. I wonder if there will be a personal quantum computer, and then a quantum mobile phone.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
The negativity sounds similar to me ...

jamespetercook 6y ago

Are these companies purchasing D-Wave computers or just renting compute time on them? The latter makes more financial sense to me

madengr 6y ago
I’m wager the NSA has one on-site.

aborsy 6y ago

I wonder what you could do with 50 qbits. Factoring 15=3*5? DW’s few thousands bits are not general purposes and error free.

upofadown 6y ago
The D-wave system is not suitable for factoring problems. AFAIK, no one has demonstrated the factoring of 15 using Shor's algorithm in a way that did not assume the answer.
- boothby 6y ago
  https://www.dwavesys.com/sites/default/files/14-1002A_B_tr_Boosting_integer_factorization_via_quantum_annealing_offsets.pdf https://www.dwavesys.com/sites/default/files/14-1002A_B_tr_B... Granted, factoring isn't the best use of our hardware, but as of 4 years ago, we were hitting 80% success rate on 10-bit semiprimes without baked-in knowledge of the answer. Doesn't need Shor's: we just implement a multiplication circuit as an Ising problem, clamp the outputs, anneal and read off the inputs.
jepler 6y ago
Apparently prime factoring has been performed on d-wave hardware. However, it's not clear to me that this leads to something useful. It's not Grover/Shor's algorithm, it's something else. Based on a quick scan of this presentation, I don't see what the claim is as far as the scaling law in space or time for the general factorization of biprimes problem. https://www.dwavesys.com/sites/default/files/32_Thurs_AM_Purdue_Britt.pdf https://www.dwavesys.com/sites/default/files/32_Thurs_AM_Pur...
- jepler 6y ago
  Ah found the "real" paper. The authors don't know how the algorithm scales either: "Finally, we note that while our demonstrations of factoring have made use of currently available quantum annealers, there is an outstanding question regarding the asymptotic complexity for this approach." https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.02733.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.02733.pdf and go on to talk about the "minimum spectral gap between the ground and first-excited states of the underlying time-dependent Hamiltonian" which might as well be something spoken in the engineering section of the Voyager to me.

cinquemb 6y ago

How does this compare to the Google Sycamore quantum processor? Would be cool if one could use this to do Hartree-Fock how google layed out [0] with the qubits to compute a bunch of binding energies for a matrix of different elements and molecules and use those to find activation coefficients on a classical computer. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.04174 https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.04174

nabla9 6y ago
D-Wave machines are quantum annealing machines, not really a quantum computers like Sycamore. In other words it's machine that can solve combinatorial optimization problems and nothing else.

fefe23 6y ago

Why would anyone be interested in what D-Wave has to say? Their previous "quantum computer" wasn't actually one, so why would I even waste time finding out if this one is?

unnouinceput 6y ago

Soo, 5000 qbits, ey? Then why are not those D-Wave already owning all the bitcoins in the world? I mean the biggest encryption used by wallets are protected by 4096 bit length, which is just a shy below 5000. Isn't quantum suppose to fly in microseconds at cracking public key encryption for that length? I call this snake oil.

plantain 6y ago
It's quantum annealer, not a universal gate system https://medium.com/quantum-bits/what-s-the-difference-between-quantum-annealing-and-universal-gate-quantum-computers-c5e5099175a1 https://medium.com/quantum-bits/what-s-the-difference-betwee...
danbruc 6y ago
The number of bits in an encryption key and the number of qubits in a quantum computer trying to break it are not related in general and even if they are related, the relation is not necessarily a linear relation. Also quantum computers do not in general offer an advantage when it comes to breaking encryption keys. They do, for example, for RSA because it relies on integer factorization and there is a faster quantum algorithm than a classical one, they do not - as far as we know - for AES for example.

easytiger 6y ago

> Accenture, a leading global professional services company, is exploring quantum, quantum-inspired, and hybrid solutions to develop applications across industries. Accenture recently conducted a series of business experiments with a banking client to pilot quantum applications for currency arbitrage, credit scoring, and trading optimization, successfully mapping computationally challenging business problems to quantum formulations, enabling quantum readiness I'd love to know more about that... Incredibly dubious on the claims

cortexio 6y ago

quantum computing is a big fad. You cant do anything with a quantum pc except generate random numbers/bytes. If you think something can be in 2 states at the same time, you're delusional. I dont even know how you begin to believe in quantum entanglement. big yikes. If you have something to say, tell me 1 example of something they actually built with a quantum pc and that's not a random number generator. And if you say encryption, it needs to be decryptable, and if you say hashing, then the hashes need to able to be checked by a quatum pc. All i can find is articles saying X use-cases for quantum pcs in the future... Like we have quantum computers now... but they cant find use cases for it, because... there are none. It's useless Also, just found these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem