I suspect the conversation will boil down to semantics over words like "useful" and "commercially viable." Were computers only commercially viable once IBM sta

I suspect the conversation will boil down to semantics over words like "useful" and "commercially viable." Were computers only commercially viable once IBM started implementing mainframes frames on a wider scale, or did some of the 1940s electro-mechanical machines have a viable place in a new industry? Regardless, I would lean towards agreeing with the title here. Roadmaps may be optimistic, yes, but if you look at the roadmaps from many of the major players, it isn't slated to take 15 to 30 years to start doing some real work. These are hyper specialized machines as far as use cases go, at least until engineers start to build layer upon layer of bootstrapping like we did with past computing devices, but some of the key areas like cryptography are probably not 15 to 30 years out before quantum computers make a somewhat meaningful impact in the world. What really cracks me up is Nvidia has quantum computing jobs on their job page. The original statement was in a PR speech by Nvidia. Of course he's playing up his own hardware and pushing his own narratives for the future of computing on a stage where his job is to do exactly that. Jensen has a celebrity effect where people hang on every word that he says. Frankly, if one wants clarity on the trajectory of quantum computing, there are dozens of analyst/sector reports that would be better informed.