3 ms·

Survivorship bias. There is a lot more science that has not panned out. I'm not saying quantum computing won't pan out, but if it has to there's some fundame

by fooker 3y ago

Survivorship bias. There is a lot more science that has not panned out. I'm not saying quantum computing won't pan out, but if it has to there's some fundamental piece that is missing so far. In contrast this effort is trying to imagine and monetize GPS before relativity is discovered.

leononame 3y ago
That's not the point. The point is that a lot of discoveries and inventions wouldn't have happened if it weren't for researching just for curiosity's sake. Research results will often be useless for product development or capitalism in general. However, focusing research on achieving specific goals only might actually take you further away from your goals. You can't focus on something you don't know exists, you have to discover it first. Maybe, when we have quantum computers, one nerd makes an accidental discovery that enables us to build a room temperature superconductor, and maybe not. But if we don't let people research freely what they're interested in and only things that will pan out, we're going to lose out on a lot of things.
- fooker 3y ago
  I agree. I didn't say quantum computing research is useless. My point is that we are not at stage that we can offer a small prize and find monetizable uses for it. Fundamental research requires a lot more funding than this.
  - vtomole 3y ago
    > In contrast this effort is trying to imagine and monetize GPS before relativity is discovered. The theory of relativity was discovered decades before GPS. Similarly, the theory of quantum computing was discovered in the 1990s. I agree with the sentiment: trying to find applications for a technology (Large fault tolerant quantum computer) that doesn't exist yet. I just think relativity is the wrong comparison. I do not think that this effort if not worth it due to not having fault tolerant quantum computers. Theory alone can take one very far.

by fooker 3y ago

leononame 3y ago

That's not the point. The point is that a lot of discoveries and inventions wouldn't have happened if it weren't for researching just for curiosity's sake. Research results will often be useless for product development or capitalism in general. However, focusing research on achieving specific goals only might actually take you further away from your goals. You can't focus on something you don't know exists, you have to discover it first. Maybe, when we have quantum computers, one nerd makes an accidental discovery that enables us to build a room temperature superconductor, and maybe not. But if we don't let people research freely what they're interested in and only things that will pan out, we're going to lose out on a lot of things.

fooker 3y ago
I agree. I didn't say quantum computing research is useless. My point is that we are not at stage that we can offer a small prize and find monetizable uses for it. Fundamental research requires a lot more funding than this.
- vtomole 3y ago
  > In contrast this effort is trying to imagine and monetize GPS before relativity is discovered. The theory of relativity was discovered decades before GPS. Similarly, the theory of quantum computing was discovered in the 1990s. I agree with the sentiment: trying to find applications for a technology (Large fault tolerant quantum computer) that doesn't exist yet. I just think relativity is the wrong comparison. I do not think that this effort if not worth it due to not having fault tolerant quantum computers. Theory alone can take one very far.