Everything a QC can do, a CC can do in greater time. QC is vaguely like a GPU or NPU in that they're niche accelerators for certain algorithmic constructions. Megacorps love them as curios.
Christopher Monroe, who co-founded quantum computer company IonQ, says people in the industry have noticed the identical bans and have been discussing their criteria, but he has no information on where they have come from.
“I have no idea who determined the logic behind these numbers,” he says, but it may have something to do with the threshold for simulating a quantum computer on an ordinary computer. This becomes exponentially harder as the number of qubits rises, so Monroe believes that the rationale behind the ban could be to restrict quantum computers that are now too advanced to be simulated, even though such devices have no practical applications.
“The fallacy there is that just because you cannot simulate what the quantum computer is doing doesn’t make it useful. And by severely limiting research to progress in this grey area, it will surely stifle innovation,” he says.
> what will happen to the trillions pouring into old-tech data centers?
Quantum compute is not a silver bullet and requires lots of auxiliary hardware. If it takes off, trillions will still be invested in classical computing.
Yes, the term "quantum computer" is rather misleading for most people, who do not know what a "quantum computer" is.
Quantum computers are not general-purpose computers, but special-purpose computers, which are able to outperform traditional computers (with a much greater cost) only for the solution of a small set of problems, most of which have little relevance in the applications where computers are currently used by the majority of people.
A quantum computer would be completely useless for reading and editing documents, computing spreadsheets, managing a database, browsing Internet, watching movies or playing games.
Thus it is very unlikely that anyone would ever desire to have a "personal" quantum computer (otherwise than for a learning experience), even if that would become possible with respect to cost. The same is true for most businesses, which are unlikely to have any needs satisfiable by quantum computers.
Quantum computers will never be competitors for traditional computers, but they could allow a few new applications, for which traditional computers are not good enough. One such promising application is the simulation of quantum systems in a manner similar to how analog computers had been used until 3 quarters of a century ago for the simulation of dynamical systems.
Everything a QC can do, a CC can do in greater time. QC is vaguely like a GPU or NPU in that they're niche accelerators for certain algorithmic constructions. Megacorps love them as curios.
Christopher Monroe, who co-founded quantum computer company IonQ, says people in the industry have noticed the identical bans and have been discussing their criteria, but he has no information on where they have come from.
“I have no idea who determined the logic behind these numbers,” he says, but it may have something to do with the threshold for simulating a quantum computer on an ordinary computer. This becomes exponentially harder as the number of qubits rises, so Monroe believes that the rationale behind the ban could be to restrict quantum computers that are now too advanced to be simulated, even though such devices have no practical applications.
“The fallacy there is that just because you cannot simulate what the quantum computer is doing doesn’t make it useful. And by severely limiting research to progress in this grey area, it will surely stifle innovation,” he says.
-- From https://www.newscientist.com/article/2436023-multiple-nation...
there seems to be a there, there.
So if quantum computing is expected to be that powerful, what will happen to the trillions pouring into old-tech data centers?
Anyone else get the feeling that something doesn't add up here? Just what nonpublic evidence is behind these decisions to ban the new tech?
> what will happen to the trillions pouring into old-tech data centers?
Quantum compute is not a silver bullet and requires lots of auxiliary hardware. If it takes off, trillions will still be invested in classical computing.
Yes, the term "quantum computer" is rather misleading for most people, who do not know what a "quantum computer" is.
Quantum computers are not general-purpose computers, but special-purpose computers, which are able to outperform traditional computers (with a much greater cost) only for the solution of a small set of problems, most of which have little relevance in the applications where computers are currently used by the majority of people.
A quantum computer would be completely useless for reading and editing documents, computing spreadsheets, managing a database, browsing Internet, watching movies or playing games.
Thus it is very unlikely that anyone would ever desire to have a "personal" quantum computer (otherwise than for a learning experience), even if that would become possible with respect to cost. The same is true for most businesses, which are unlikely to have any needs satisfiable by quantum computers.
Quantum computers will never be competitors for traditional computers, but they could allow a few new applications, for which traditional computers are not good enough. One such promising application is the simulation of quantum systems in a manner similar to how analog computers had been used until 3 quarters of a century ago for the simulation of dynamical systems.