5 ms·

I think the most realistic goal was always a main-frame type computer that could perform computations for special purposes. Not necessarily to shrink it down t

by starkd 4y ago

I think the most realistic goal was always a main-frame type computer that could perform computations for special purposes. Not necessarily to shrink it down to phone-size or even a desktop. But maybe the marketing did really have this objective.

himinlomax 4y ago
First thing would be to figure what that special purpose could possibly be. We're not even there yet ...
- hailwren 4y ago
  For civilian applications, sure. But Shor’s seems like a good enough reason for defense and defense have deep enough pockets to get this somewhat rolling.
- return_to_monke 4y ago
  The special purpose is figuring out what the special purpose is :)
- er4hn 4y ago
  My friends in the industry tell me that predicting protein folding is a popular civilian use case.
  - kazinator 4y ago
    Seems like the easiest way to use quantum mechanics to predict how a protein will fold might be to actually build that protein and watch.
    - sivizius 4y ago
      yes, because watching molecules is easy…right?
- benreesman 4y ago
  Grover has some plausible applications as well as Shor. And Shor is based on quantum superior FFT if I recall correctly, which could have applications outside of discrete log. Disclaimer: I’m not an expert on this stuff, I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong because there are real pros on here.
moffkalast 4y ago
Problem is, practically any special purpose can probably be done more cost effectively by brute forcing with conventional computing.
- nine_k 4y ago
  Cost of brute-forcing certain things (like NP-hard^W^W NP-complete problems) on regular computers quickly exceeds the cost of building and operating a quantum computer. Hence all the trying to make these contraptions work on non-toy problems.
  - brnaftr361 4y ago
    Just make an Amoeboa computer?
    - moffkalast 4y ago
      At least it would be something new
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    We don't know of a single NP-hard problem where quantum computers would show any exponential speed-up (there may be some speed-up by using the O(sqrt(n)) brute search quantum algorithm instead of the classical O(n) search algo, but that will be quickly drowned out by the exponential factors). Even worse, there is no reason to think that there will ever be - as far as we know, QCs only show an exponential advantage on problems with very very specific structures, while the whole problem of NP-hard problems is that they have no structure in general.
    - nine_k 4y ago
      Indeed, NP-hard is wrong! NP-complete is the interesting class where quantum computers theoretically could help.
      - 4y ago
jacobsimon 4y ago
Huh I’m not an expert but doesn’t AWS already offer quantum computing as a service? https://aws.amazon.com/braket/ https://aws.amazon.com/braket/
- krastanov 4y ago
  They do not offer anything of use. This is just a demo for an API that in principle can be used as an "assembly language" for quantum computers, but it either runs on simulators that can not do more than 10 "perfect" qubits, or on hardware that has 100-ish "noisy" qubits. You need about a million "noisy" qubits, together with error correction codes, to encode 1000 logical "perfect" qubits. That is about the minimal number at which you can do something useful.
  - sp332 4y ago
    All true, but in the context of the thread, the future of quantum computing will probably be remote. So the bulk of the machinery is irrelevant.
    - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
      Unless the bulk required to be useful is infeasible to assemble anywhere.
      - DonHopkins 4y ago
        You'll need to build a Dyson Sphere to power your quantum chip factory! https://dyson-sphere-program.fandom.com/wiki/Quantum_Chip https://dyson-sphere-program.fandom.com/wiki/Quantum_Chip QUANTUM CHIPS Running low? Never Again! | Dyson Sphere Program Master Class https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-xAZj0C2yo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-xAZj0C2yo
  - queuebert 4y ago
    Once we get to 640,000 perfect qubits we'll be done, because no one needs more than 640k.

by starkd 4y ago

himinlomax 4y ago

First thing would be to figure what that special purpose could possibly be. We're not even there yet ...

hailwren 4y ago
For civilian applications, sure. But Shor’s seems like a good enough reason for defense and defense have deep enough pockets to get this somewhat rolling.
return_to_monke 4y ago
The special purpose is figuring out what the special purpose is :)
er4hn 4y ago
My friends in the industry tell me that predicting protein folding is a popular civilian use case.
- kazinator 4y ago
  Seems like the easiest way to use quantum mechanics to predict how a protein will fold might be to actually build that protein and watch.
  - sivizius 4y ago
    yes, because watching molecules is easy…right?
benreesman 4y ago
Grover has some plausible applications as well as Shor. And Shor is based on quantum superior FFT if I recall correctly, which could have applications outside of discrete log. Disclaimer: I’m not an expert on this stuff, I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong because there are real pros on here.

moffkalast 4y ago

Problem is, practically any special purpose can probably be done more cost effectively by brute forcing with conventional computing.

nine_k 4y ago
Cost of brute-forcing certain things (like NP-hard^W^W NP-complete problems) on regular computers quickly exceeds the cost of building and operating a quantum computer. Hence all the trying to make these contraptions work on non-toy problems.
- brnaftr361 4y ago
  Just make an Amoeboa computer?
  - moffkalast 4y ago
    At least it would be something new
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  We don't know of a single NP-hard problem where quantum computers would show any exponential speed-up (there may be some speed-up by using the O(sqrt(n)) brute search quantum algorithm instead of the classical O(n) search algo, but that will be quickly drowned out by the exponential factors). Even worse, there is no reason to think that there will ever be - as far as we know, QCs only show an exponential advantage on problems with very very specific structures, while the whole problem of NP-hard problems is that they have no structure in general.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    Indeed, NP-hard is wrong! NP-complete is the interesting class where quantum computers theoretically could help.
    - 4y ago

jacobsimon 4y ago

Huh I’m not an expert but doesn’t AWS already offer quantum computing as a service? https://aws.amazon.com/braket/ https://aws.amazon.com/braket/

krastanov 4y ago
They do not offer anything of use. This is just a demo for an API that in principle can be used as an "assembly language" for quantum computers, but it either runs on simulators that can not do more than 10 "perfect" qubits, or on hardware that has 100-ish "noisy" qubits. You need about a million "noisy" qubits, together with error correction codes, to encode 1000 logical "perfect" qubits. That is about the minimal number at which you can do something useful.
- sp332 4y ago
  All true, but in the context of the thread, the future of quantum computing will probably be remote. So the bulk of the machinery is irrelevant.
  - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
    Unless the bulk required to be useful is infeasible to assemble anywhere.
    - DonHopkins 4y ago
      You'll need to build a Dyson Sphere to power your quantum chip factory! https://dyson-sphere-program.fandom.com/wiki/Quantum_Chip https://dyson-sphere-program.fandom.com/wiki/Quantum_Chip QUANTUM CHIPS Running low? Never Again! | Dyson Sphere Program Master Class https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-xAZj0C2yo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-xAZj0C2yo
- queuebert 4y ago
  Once we get to 640,000 perfect qubits we'll be done, because no one needs more than 640k.