Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DILDOS_UNITED t1_ivu2q8m wrote

Reply to comment by Cykablast3r in IBM unveils its 433 qubit Osprey quantum computer by vom2r750

That wasn’t exactly a guess now was it?

I can think of a few and speculate from there. But I think it’s more valid to state:

The argument ‘what would you use it for’ is the exact same argument they made 20 years ago for why you’d need 32GBs of RAM in your pc. Well maybe 30 years ago, but exponential growth and all that.

1

Cykablast3r t1_ivu3gfe wrote

>That wasn’t exactly a guess now was it?

What wasn't?

>The argument ‘what would you use it for’ is the exact same argument they made 20 years ago for why you’d need 32GBs of RAM in your pc. Well maybe 30 years ago, but exponential growth and all that.

This argument is a false equivalence. Quantum computing isn't "same but more powerful" it's a completely different thing with a different use case. You're comparing cars to trains.

"I can't wait to have my own train in 30 years."

1

DILDOS_UNITED t1_ivumtxc wrote

The essential difference between bits and qbits is the ability to represent superpositions. That’s basically ‘same but way, way, waaaay more powerful’. I’d absolutely love to have a supercomputer in my pocket and I can certainly think of some use cases that involve technology that doesn’t exist right now.

The best use case I can come up with right now is an advanced physics game engine that simulates physical reality by processing interactions between quantum particles. This would definitely be done best by a quantum gpu. Why would you? Why wouldn’t you? Why wouldn’t you stream all that data from a supercomputer in the cloud? Same reason I build my own desktop instead.

It’s very strange to me that you think people wouldn’t 100% build and find uses for a train in their pocket if they could. History has certainly shown otherwise.

1

Cykablast3r t1_ivv8n00 wrote

> The essential difference between bits and qbits is the ability to represent superpositions. That’s basically ‘same but way, way, waaaay more powerful’.

No it's not. Not at all. qbits aren't more powerful than bits, they're completely different. A conventional computer would be far better suited for the tasks we already use it for.

Quantum computers aren't being developed as a replacement for conventional computers, they're being developed for things conventional computers can't manage, namely combinatorics. You don't need combinatorics in your daily life.

>It’s very strange to me that you think people wouldn’t 100% build and find uses for a train in their pocket if they could. History has certainly shown otherwise.

No it hasn't? I don't know anyone who owns a train. A car is much more useful.

1

DILDOS_UNITED t1_ivvf14g wrote

That’s so funny because IBM’s website says they are more powerful. Whatever you say then chief. Not sure where you’re getting that they’re being made for fancy counting.. all I read is that this tech is amazing at advanced simulation and complex calculations. Literally no one but you is saying that conventional computers are ‘better suited’ to what we use them for. Other than the fact that right now these huge machines only have a few hundred qbits of course.

1

Cykablast3r t1_ivvhnux wrote

>That’s so funny because IBM’s website says they are more powerful.

Right...

Yeah whatever mate, you do you. Time will tell I guess.

1