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.
Quantum computers are now where neural nets were in the 1980s.
Amazing computational speedups if you regularly use any of these incredibly specific algorithms. Otherwise useless.
Quantum as a service may exist as a business.
Uh… one of those algorithms in your list is literally for speeding up linear algebra. Do you think just because it sounds technical it’s “businessy”? All modern technology is technical, that’s what technology is. It would be like someone saying, “GPUs would be useless to regular people because all they mainly do is speed up matrix multiplication. Who cares about that except for businesses?” Many of these algorithms here offer potential speedup for linear algebra operations. That is the basis of both graphics and AI. One of those algorithms is even for machine learning in that list. There are various algorithms for potentially speeding up matrix multiplication in the linear. It’s huge for regular consumers… assuming the technology could ever progress to come to regular consumers.
literally for speeding up linear algebra
For a sparse matrix where you don’t need the values of the solution vector.
I.e. a very specific use case.
Quantum computers will be called from libraries that apply very specific subroutines for very specific problems.
Consumers may occasionally call a quantum subroutine in a cloud environment. I very much doubt we will have a quantum chip in our phone.
Why are you isolating a single algorithm? There are tons of them that speed up various aspects of linear algebra and not just that single one, and many improvements to these algorithms since they were first introduced, there are a lot more in the literature than just in the popular consciousness.
The point is not that it will speed up every major calculation, but these are calculations that could be made use of, and there will likely even be more similar algorithms discovered if quantum computers are more commonplace. There is a whole branch of research called quantum machine learning that is centered solely around figuring out how to make use of these algorithms to provide performance benefits for machine learning algorithms.
If they would offer speed benefits, then why wouldn’t you want to have the chip that offers the speed benefits in your phone? Of course, in practical terms, we likely will not have this due to the difficulty and expense of quantum chips, and the fact they currently have to be cooled below to near zero degrees Kelvin. But your argument suggests that if somehow consumers could have access to technology in their phone that would offer performance benefits to their software that they wouldn’t want it.
That just makes no sense to me. The issue is not that quantum computers could not offer performance benefits in theory. The issue is more about whether or not the theory can be implemented in practical engineering terms, as well as a cost-to-performance ratio. The engineering would have to be good enough to both bring the price down and make the performance benefits high enough to make it worth it.
It is the same with GPUs. A GPU can only speed up certain problems, and it would thus be even more inefficient to try and force every calculation through the GPU. You have libraries that only call the GPU when it is needed for certain calculations. This ends up offering major performance benefits and if the price of the GPU is low enough and the performance benefits high enough to match what the consumers want, they will buy it. We also have separate AI chips now as well which are making their way into some phones. While there’s no reason at the current moment to believe we will see quantum technology shrunk small and cheap enough to show up in consumer phones, if hypothetically that was the case, I don’t see why consumers wouldn’t want it.
I am sure clever software developers would figure out how to make use of them if they were available like that. They likely will not be available like that any time in the near future, if ever, but assuming they are, there would probably be a lot of interesting use cases for them that have not even been thought of yet. They will likely remain something largely used by businesses but in my view it will be mostly because of practical concerns. The benefits of them won’t outweigh the cost anytime soon.
Why are you isolating a single algorithm?
To show that quantum computing only helps with very specific parts of very specific algorithms.
A QC is not a CPU, it’s not a GPU, it’s closer to a superpowered FPU.
If they would offer speed benefits, then why wouldn’t you want to have the chip that offers the speed benefits in your phone?
if somehow consumers could have access to technology in their phone that would offer performance benefits to their software that they wouldn’t want it.
Because the same functionality would be available as a cloud service (like AI now). This reduces costs and the need to carry liquid nitrogen around.
The issue is not that quantum computers could not offer performance benefits in theory.
It is this. QC only enhances some very specific tasks.
It is the same with GPUs. A GPU can only speed up certain problems. You have libraries that only call the GPU when it is needed for certain calculations.
Yes, exactly my point. QC is a less flexible GPU.
I don’t see why consumers wouldn’t want it.
Because they would need to use the specific quantum enhanced algorithms frequently enough to pay to have local, always on access.
They will likely remain something largely used by businesses but in my view it will be mostly because of practical concerns. The benefits of them won’t outweigh the cost anytime soon.
Agree. Unless some magic tech, like room temperature superconductors, turns up there will only be quantum as a service supplied for some very specific business needs.
Because the same functionality would be available as a cloud service (like AI now). This reduces costs and the need to carry liquid nitrogen around.
Okay, you are just misrepresenting my argument at this point.
I’m so dreadfully sorry. I cannot help myself. Please forgive me.
It’s “zero kelvins” not “zero degrees Kelvin.”
You don’t have to be sorry, that was stupid of me to write that.
I dunno if anyone except scientists and security people think about quantum computing at the moment.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
I’d say it’s still at the beginning of the curve. At the technology trigger phase. I don’t hear about it as much as I would expect
The answer for that exists as a superposition of multiple possibilities but as soon as somebody manages to read it it will decohere into just the one.
Pretty sure QC is down at 0,0 right now. They haven’t gotten it to work in the way it’s been envisioned yet. The theory is there, but until something is quantifiably working, there’s basically no hype behind it.
Quantum computers have already had its hype, so plateau of productivity. It’s just that the plateau is really low.
There is a difference between feasibility hype and adoption hype. The hype about it being possible at all has passed. But the true hype relevant to the graph is when it is implemented in the general economy, outside of labs and research facilities.
Quantum computers have no place in typical consumer technology, its practical applications are super high level STEM research and cryptography. Beyond being cool to conceptualize why would there be hype around quantum computers from the perspective of most average people who can barely figure out how to post on social media or send an email?
People thought the same of binary computers in their development phase.
All points on that curve, at the same time just now, for undefined values of now.
Either somewhere on the far left, and we’ll see some actual breakthrough with major impact in the future which actually gets hyped, or on the far right and it already happened, it was just too niche for anyone other than a specific small group to notice.
I think the big breakthrough was in cryptography, and yeah, most people don’t care. All of your passwords will be useless against brute force attacks in 10-15 years from it tho!
But we already have quantum proof passwords nowadays.
Even “quantum proof” passwords are trivially broken if quantum computers allow us to practically solve p=np.
That’s a pretty big assumption though, and even then you can just switch to a new password format that allows for passwords that aren’t solvable using mathematical means. e.g. my password is to fill in a picture on 10x10 grid using 10 different colours. There’s no mathematical basis to guess my picture and there are more posibilites than there are particles in the observable universe.
That’s perfectly solveable with math. Each grid square can take 10 colors, so there are 10^100 possibilities. That’s about 330 bits of entropy, or equivalent to a 51 character password. That’s gross overkill if the underlying cryptosystem isn’t broken, but insufficient if it is (depending on the details).
Cryptography routinely deals with much, much larger numbers than what you’re suggesting (e.g. any RSA key), and even those get broken occasionally.
I personally think we’re on the slope of enlightenment - quantum computing no longer attracts as much hype as it used to, but in the background, there’s a lot of interesting developments that genuinely might be very important.
Inflated Expectations. Most people who are aware of them will still talk about how they’re going to destroy crypto. We are very, very far off from the size of QC that could possibly do that. It may not even be feasible to do the quantum juggling act necessary to handle that many qbits. It primarily effects public key crypto, with relatively minor effects on block ciphers and hashes. Plus, we already have post-quantum crypto making its way into TLS and other cryptographic suites.
And don’t get me started on the morons who think the NSA already has some super secret breakthrough QC that can already break all crypto. Often from the same sorts of people who (correctly) throw Russell’s Teapot at creationists.
Meanwhile, there are far more interesting possibilities that don’t need so many qbits. Things like improving logistics or molecular simulation.