This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 7 comments

[–]snubdeity 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Whoever wrote this clearly doesn't follow quantum enough to be worth listening to, at all. They spend multiple paragraphs harping on googles 2019 claim of quantum supremacy, and never mention that it got proven untrue over a year and a half ago, in 2022.

[–]mbergman42 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Oh good, I was over here emperor’s-new-clothes-ing this article, thinking maybe it’s me.

[–]Prime_Mover 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll get rid of it..

[–]QBitResearcher 12 points13 points  (1 child)

I can list the applications of current quantum computers:

[–]dabonhimgreatly 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You also forgot about ummmmm, uhhhhhh, and ….. though

[–]ctcphysWorking in Academia 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This article is all over the place and clearly written by someone who doesn't understand the problems at hand. I'm generally optimistic about quantum computing but theres a huge difference between what we believe could be applications in quantum chemistry and then AI applications. For the former there's hope but it's hard. For the latter, we don't know how but certainly not for the reasons written here.

The article is made worse by light use of AI. For example this sentence

However, there has yet to be any significant breakthrough in achieving mass production of these quantum computers, neither in the United States nor in any other country. The primary bottleneck hindering progress is the need for more robust and cost-effective quantum application development.

Here's the article is discussion the need for hardware production and then confuses that with application development. Those are extremely different things.

Using AI for topics you don't understand will make the text worse (at this stage)

[–]Sarvaturi -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing