3 ms·

Locklin explains it best in "Quantum computing as a field is obvious bullshit" [1]: "quantum computing” enthusiasts expect you to overlook the fact that they h

Locklin explains it best in "Quantum computing as a field is obvious bullshit" [1]: "quantum computing” enthusiasts expect you to overlook the fact that they haven’t a clue as to how to build and manipulate quantum coherent forms of matter necessary to achieve quantum computation. A quantum computer capable of truly factoring the number 21 is missing in action. In fact, the factoring of the number 15 into 3 and 5 is a bit of a parlour trick, as they design the experiment while knowing the answer, thus leaving out the gates required if we didn’t know how to factor 15. The actual number of gates needed to factor a n-bit number is 72 * n^3; so for 15, it’s 4 bits, 4608 gates; not happening any time soon." [1] https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/quantum-computing-as-a-field-is-obvious-bullshit/ https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2019/01/15/quantum-comput...

Ar-Curunir 6y ago
That argument is quite bullshit, no? Just because something takes a long time doesn’t mean it won’t happen. We invented the first algorithms thousands of years ago, but only constructed working computers to execute those algorithms 100 years ago.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  But we weren't spending a fortune building non-working computers (and then lying about that) in between, which we are doing for quantum computing.
nolok 6y ago
I don't entirely disagree but, isn't all revolution research like this ? You circle around an objective, throwing random things at it with no idea how to achieve it until someone has an eureka moment and you suddenly pass it. The bigger the objective, the bigger the wall to pass, the larger the eureka needed. If we only funded or took seriously research where the researcher actually knew the solution or had a good idea how to reach it, we wouldn't have made that kind of a tech jump in the last century, let alone in the last 50 years.
mathgenius 6y ago
> they haven’t a clue Excuse me? They have plenty of "clues". Have a look at this for some recent work from the google group: https://scirate.com/arxiv/2102.06132 https://scirate.com/arxiv/2102.06132 Will it lead to quantum computers in the future remains to be seen, but "haven't a clue" is just nonsense.
- sillysaurusx 6y ago
  Hmm. That's a bit over-literal. They meant, if a group of spies were pointing guns at the physicists and engineers and saying "You will build a functional quantum computer within 5 years, or we will pull the trigger," then their life expectancy will be exactly five years. (I assume the "factoring 15 parlor trick" doesn't count as functional, since you have to punt the number of gates just to get the expected answer.)
junippor 6y ago
> In 2010, I laid out an argument against quantum computing as a field based on the fact that no observable progress has taken place. I'm a physicist by training and a quant by profession - from what I can gather, not unlike the author. Without judging the merits of quantum computing I will just notice that arguments like "has no merit because it has made no progress" are backwards-looking. You're not assessing anything from first principles, you're just saying that nothing has happened _yet_. In finance this reminds me of trend followers. Yes, you can make money by following the trend, but you're the last crowd to jump on the opportunity, right behind the guys who were looking ahead instead of back. That said, such people also provide a nice balance against "we don't know everything therefore anything is possible" crackpots.

Ar-Curunir 6y ago

That argument is quite bullshit, no? Just because something takes a long time doesn’t mean it won’t happen. We invented the first algorithms thousands of years ago, but only constructed working computers to execute those algorithms 100 years ago.

alisonkisk 6y ago
But we weren't spending a fortune building non-working computers (and then lying about that) in between, which we are doing for quantum computing.

nolok 6y ago

I don't entirely disagree but, isn't all revolution research like this ? You circle around an objective, throwing random things at it with no idea how to achieve it until someone has an eureka moment and you suddenly pass it. The bigger the objective, the bigger the wall to pass, the larger the eureka needed. If we only funded or took seriously research where the researcher actually knew the solution or had a good idea how to reach it, we wouldn't have made that kind of a tech jump in the last century, let alone in the last 50 years.

mathgenius 6y ago

> they haven’t a clue Excuse me? They have plenty of "clues". Have a look at this for some recent work from the google group: https://scirate.com/arxiv/2102.06132 https://scirate.com/arxiv/2102.06132 Will it lead to quantum computers in the future remains to be seen, but "haven't a clue" is just nonsense.

sillysaurusx 6y ago
Hmm. That's a bit over-literal. They meant, if a group of spies were pointing guns at the physicists and engineers and saying "You will build a functional quantum computer within 5 years, or we will pull the trigger," then their life expectancy will be exactly five years. (I assume the "factoring 15 parlor trick" doesn't count as functional, since you have to punt the number of gates just to get the expected answer.)

junippor 6y ago

> In 2010, I laid out an argument against quantum computing as a field based on the fact that no observable progress has taken place. I'm a physicist by training and a quant by profession - from what I can gather, not unlike the author. Without judging the merits of quantum computing I will just notice that arguments like "has no merit because it has made no progress" are backwards-looking. You're not assessing anything from first principles, you're just saying that nothing has happened _yet_. In finance this reminds me of trend followers. Yes, you can make money by following the trend, but you're the last crowd to jump on the opportunity, right behind the guys who were looking ahead instead of back. That said, such people also provide a nice balance against "we don't know everything therefore anything is possible" crackpots.