But that's 1% per instruction. It compounds, exponentially. Can ML and quantum chemistry take a 99.5% error rate? Bacause with 1000 gates deep circuits that's w

But that's 1% per instruction. It compounds, exponentially. Can ML and quantum chemistry take a 99.5% error rate? Bacause with 1000 gates deep circuits that's what they'll get. I can't talk about chemistry, but I've studied those quantum ML algorithms. I even designed one, a variant of the QSVM that I tested on IBM's computers when they were state of the art. They're all useless. There's just no way they'll compete with clusters of GPU in this century, I'd bet my hands on it. First you'd need good hardware that doesn't just output noise for long enough circuits to do something interesting. Second you'd need computers fast enough to be able to run many experiments one after the other, so you can do actual training (Alas, speed is antithetical to adiabatic operations). Third, you'd need to prove your quantum AI actually has an edge over classical ones to justify cooling down this much hardware to 0.01K for months at a time. I simply don't buy it.