4 ms·
When it costs a few dollars to make the latter and tens of millions to make the former then it’s fair to not be super impressed.
by dumbfounder 5y ago
When it costs a few dollars to make the latter and tens of millions to make the former then it’s fair to not be super impressed.
- krastanov 5y agoYou are off by 9 orders of magnitude at least. The classical super computer in these comparisons costs 0.3 Billion dollars and this does not count the many Trillions that took to develop the tech. Even on this measure, the (useless for now) quantum tech wins.
- dumbfounder 5y agoI was assuming it was transistor count to qubit count, didn’t count the 0’s but either way not 9 orders of magnitude off so not sure what exactly you are saying, but either way all I am saying is that it isn’t impressive to a lot of people precisely because it is useless right now. So you are off by 100% in my opinion, way more than 9 orders of magnitude ;)
- krastanov 5y agoThe people that have created these devices never claimed that they can be used for any useful computation, neither did the people you are talking to here. However, these technology demonstrators do show a programmable computation (sampling from a particular probability distribution) that is infeasible on anything but a supercomputer and becomes just impossible once you add a couple more qubits. Sure, we do believe these devices, when made more reliable, will also do "useful" computations that are infeasible on supercomputers, but we are aware that we need to build the devices first in order to convince you. 9 orders is the difference between a few dollars and a billion dollars.