They’ve always gotten lots of funding in quantum for techniques with big promises that haven’t delivered yet. I’m not even saying they’re misleading us so much

They’ve always gotten lots of funding in quantum for techniques with big promises that haven’t delivered yet. I’m not even saying they’re misleading us so much as it has had basically no payoff compared to HPC, FPGA’s, and even analog computing. The bigger concern of companies like that is if someone bankrolls dirt-cheap FPGA’s or Adapteva-style cores with open architectures targeted by a toolchain like Synflow’s or Cray’s Chapel. From there, domain-specific applications (esp optimized kernels) targeting those tools. Then, MPP-style hardware as cheap as commodity servers to scale it up and out. I’m talking engineering the thing by combining proven strategies, not doing new research. Even $100 million put into such systems would deliver more value in more areas than $1 billion put into quantum computing. If not, we’d at least get huge speed-ups with the parallel architectures for a while and then the QC folks eventually deliver something better in some areas. I’d be happy both ways so long as one is in my building or it’s in the cloud for $2.30/hr. :)