Personally I find quantum computers really impressive, and they havent been given its righteous hype.

I know they won’t be something everyone has in their house but it will greatly improve some services.

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    ooh good deep dive.

    investment in quantum computing by the US government has doubled in less than 4 years, I know China is throwing huge amounts of money at it also, but you won’t see large public investment until commercially available products become widespread, which is not to say that you can’t invest in qcomputing if you want to.

    let me know what you find with air travel investment 120 years ago, I’m interested.

    update: looks like vanderbilt and morgan invested 1 million dollars in the wright brothers company 6 years after kitty hawk, which would still be very, very early days for investing in flight.

    here’s an article sunnarizing several quotes from darpa after experimenting with eight of the currently available quantum computers:

    https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/24/darpa_quantum_computer_benchmarking_papers/

    The results are mixed depending on what was measured, but it’s important to note that DARPA didn’t say quantum computing isn’t real or isn’t practical, just current quantum computers aren’t ready to consistently tackle every problem, which is a lot like saying a 1995 desktop can’t run Witcher 3.

    and for fun, that’s obviously the information DARPA has publicly shared, anything quantum computing could be positively applied to with significant efficacy would be a matter of national security at this point.

    while not as relevant as the actual results DARPA is releasing, it’s important to keep in mind that satellite phones were around '62 but weren’t commercially available for at least 30 years.

    Three decades of practical development and use cases before that tech becomes mainstream.

    • Asidonhopo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Good points, I’m reevaluating my perspective on quantum computing.

      From the article you posted, it says that “certain chemistry, quantum materials, and materials science applications” are suitable for quantum computing but that “accelerating incompressible computational fluid dynamics” aren’t suitable with current understanding of how the algorithms could work.

      My takeaway as someone with a couple years of CS education from years ago is that the qcomputers are good at gradient descent/simulated annealing or something like that but that advantage disappears with more complex problems. Also that we’ll need a few more orders of magnitude qubits to make the output “interesting.” Still though, helpful to see that something worthwhile is stirring under all that research , I appreciate the insight!

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        for sure, every time I hear about a new article about quantum computers I think back to the last article detailing the next level quantum computing had been taken, which we’re mostly hardware benchmarks and not testing, now darpa is testing more than half a dozen limited-functioning quantum computers I’m all sorts of fields.

        now i’m waiting for the next development.