Quantum Computing: Tech's Longest-Running Hoax

[@moletrap2640]

Quantum computing will neither be a success or a failure, it will be ever suspended in a state of uncertainty.

[@denisdoci23]

Underrated joke

[@julianking4793]

True! In all probability.

[@NatePilgrim]

Niceeee

[@mktwatcher]

Well Said

[@Chris-ic4ue]

It will more likely be both a success and a failure simultaneously.

[@cpm1003]

The more confusing a technology is, the easier it is to use it to extract money from people.

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

And the more likely it will never work, and all the engineers already have realized that it is a scam

[@justicedemocrat9357]

Is that why your mom keeps buying calculators?

[@kiyoponnn]

you don't need anything special to extract money from people who do not think(obviously this does not apply to people who have more money than they know what to do with). "a fool and his money are soon parted"

[@carloa877]

Just like crypto and the blockchain.

[@G45H3R]

Or views on youtube apparently. People talking about things they know almost nothing about....ridiculous....

[@yunowhatitis6783]

I am a time traveller from 2124. Quantum computers are finally mature, and have revolutionized humanity by mining more bitcoins.

[@uFFFO]

Thought it would've enabled time travel, but I guess not.

[@DoctorBiobrain]

But what about NFT apes? Have quantum computers finally made them useful or are they still bored?

[@UCjNrKLyRJI-abFA8qiNo92Q]

fun fact: bitcoin has a death date, there's a limited number of hashes that can be mined and once they are all mined the entire system can't be secured anymore. if quantum computers are good at randomness I think they should be used to mine all the remaining blocks and spiral the value like it happened to Luna

[@honor9lite1337]

No need, more efficient to just bruteforcing those 12-15 word wallet seed to automagically own all the available coin. ​@@UCjNrKLyRJI-abFA8qiNo92Q

[@KiinaSu]

@@UCjNrKLyRJI-abFA8qiNo92Q After 2016 blocks the difficulty will be adjusted to get back to the roughly 10 minutes per block. So unless they hit like the max difficulty of roughly 26 unvigintillion, this isn't going to work.

[@adamsoft7831]

Did my PhD in topological quantum error correcting codes like mentioned in the video, and I don't agree that quantum computers will never be useful, but I do agree that the claims made by companies probably constitute a hoax. We've come a super long way in the last 7-10 years, from playing with 2 qubit gates in a lab with terrible fidelities, to having large 2D arrays that demonstrate below-threshold error correction capabilities. This is incredible and much further than maybe naysayers 10 years ago thought would be achieved. That said, there's still at least 10-15 years of economics of scale ahead and a billion scientific and engineering challenges to get those 1000s of physical qubits to 1000s of logical ones. Anyone promising the world in the next couple years is full of it imo.

[@peacefulexistence_]

Does a few decades sound reasonable for running Shor's Algorithm at a reasonably large elliptic curve key ?

[@NN-rs1ny]

I think what he was trying to say by doing the video is that even if we get a Quantum Coumputer they may not be able to be good for anything tangible , my thing is that we're trying to create something that uses something that we don't even fully know how it works ....

[@G45H3R]

Thank you. an actuallly intelligent comment from an actual PhD.

[@TheCurtisnixon]

@@peacefulexistence_ hello dunning, have you met my friend, krueger?

[@TheCurtisnixon]

@@NN-rs1ny and it's the same for nearly every emerging tech for the last couple thousands years....

[@brn2bwild2001]

I have a Masters in computer science and worked for a venture capital firm. We reviewed no less than 50 proposals for Quantum Computing. Not a single one could show a convincing path to profitability.

[@ericlawrence9060]

Thanks for that. I have looked into them too and can't see a single use for them.

[@123fourfive5]

They need government contracts and funding. They won't be useful or profitable for normal people

[@Redmanticore]

..so what? basic research never promises profitable applications. it cant, its just basic research. yet basic research is the basis of all science and its real world applications. same in fusion energy, that china is also massively developing. its like asking in 1940 are microchips going to be a profitable thing in 2024. nobody can answer in 1940, because 1st microchip was made in 1959.

[@sirsneakybeaky]

"We reviewed multiple proposals for this thing called the 'internet'. None showed a path to profitability" Litterally the internet ended up being funded by colleges and government to aid research. There was never any thought of how to make profit off it. There was the idea that it would aid research and provide a military communication advantage. It wasnt till the technology was pretty mature that it started to move to a consumer service. And only after applications for research were found to overlap with consumer demands. Its a bleeding edge tech. No one can prove a profit. Thats the risk of investing in bleeding edge tech.

[@jespado]

I poured flour in a bowl yesterday. It would take a classical computer 1000 years to simulate this accurately. I have achieved baking supremacy-now I just need to figure out how to turn my dough into a qubit!

[@dominik13579]

Shut up and take my money

[@gmarkv10]

I’m sure we could make a lot of dough together

[@Tom_Quixote]

Just call it iBake and you'll be rich in no time.

[@OH2easy]

Instead, just focus on turning your qubits into dough. That appears to be a lot easier.

[@christerhammarstrom5400]

Voooh keep on it !

[@Morbacounet]

Quantum computing and nuclear fusion have a lot in common. The theory is solid. The promises are impressive. Applying the theory and making the promises a reality is the hard part.

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

Fusion can work theoretically, but not in reality due to the engineering problem of having two simultaneously contradictory states in the system: low temperature superconductivity in electromagnetic containment system, and high temperature plasma that maintains the fusion. The high temperature plasma ensures that the low temperature superconductors can never work together.

[@edwardlewis1963]

The theory for quantum computing is not solid. Quantum computing takes the state of a qubit from: Don't know To Superposition It's the schrodinger cat all over again. Quantum computing is taking low temperature physics research funding. Meanwhile you have photonic quantum computing research, which does not require low temperature research funding.

[@soulysouly7253]

​@@edwardlewis1963you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. The theory is solid, it is however way ahead of what is possible to do in a noisy, warm environment like ours, doesnt mean that the maths behind it is incorrect.

[@Betweoxwitegan]

​@@DumbledoreMcCrackenThis isn't true, Magnetic confinement is the most common form in fusion research but you can also use inertial confinement which does not require strong magnetic fields to confine the superheated plasma, it heats and compresses the plasma so rapidly that it cannot expand via lasers or a strong electric current. Fusion faces many complex challenges but the temperature differential isn't really one of them, the main ones are 1) deficiencies in Tritium, 2) inefficient heating systems (it needs to reach 100 million C°) 3) material challenges (you need a material resistant to extreme heat, radiation and pressure) and 4) Plasma instability & confinement (if your using magnetic confinement for example then you need a finely tuned algorithm to automatically adjust the magnetic field in response to reaction externalities) By far however the biggest issue is energy input efficiency, we simply cannot produce the necessary conditions, being 100 million C° and get a net energy output from the reaction. I do honestly believe that fusion is a few decades away, perhaps that's an all too common pipedream, I don't know. I do however believe that fusion cannot only work in theory but in practice and that it can have immeasurable benefit to the world, unlike quantum computing.

[@skierpage]

@@edwardlewis1963 the theory is definitely solid. The superposition of entangled qubits is well-understood and researchers _can_ manipulate quantum states. The twin challenges are 1) increasing the number of qubits and and their stability, and 2) developing and refining algorithms so they do something useful on near-term quantum computers instead of millions of error-correcting qubits.

[@jeffsetter213]

The real genius is the guy who named it 'quantum computing'. It just sounds so damn cool, who wouldn't want to be involved?

[@mktwatcher]

Name is based on Quantum Physics. Even Einstein went to his grave not believing Quantum Physics.

[@monkqp]

​@@mktwatcher This is misleading. Einstein thought that there were deeper systems which gave way to the apparent randomness of quantum physics. It wasn't as simple as disbelief in the model. He accepted that quantum physics was non-deterministic, but did not think it was truly random, just arising from a yet unknown set of laws. Moreover, Einstein himself was a big contributor to quantum mechanics.

[@404maxnotfound]

@@mktwatcher To make it clear "Einstein went to his grave not believing Quantum Physics" because we didn't have any way to test and measure it back then. The principles found in Quantum Physics modern day is a heavily researched field and so it's not something you believe or not believe, it's just fact.

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

@@monkqp Einstein was likely correct. If there is no causation at the quantum level, then 'reality' may not exist in any meaningful way.

[@Tokmurok]

@@DumbledoreMcCracken What you see is not real. What is real are the ideas and forces above this world. Science has been proving this for years and it goes ignored by materialists, or just those that insist matter exists in the way we instinctually believe.

[@dougsheldon5560]

So, now I'm a quantum computer? I can't do anything useful either. And I'm rarely coherent.

[@obsidianjane4413]

Too bad that won't get you a billion dollars though.

[@NightRogue77]

Completely understand. Personally I hate being in simultaneous states until I’m observed

[@killerrabbit4448]

I’ll invest 23 billion $ in you.

[@saiki1989]

From a physics viewpoint, yes you are 😊

[@dougsheldon5560]

@@killerrabbit4448 I'm a cheap date.

[@NightSentinel51]

Being possible and being useful are two different thing.

[@InvasionAnimation]

ikr like living forever. Sure it is possible but if everyone did it that would be very bad.

[@MrMadvillan]

just because you can, doesn’t mean you should 😅

[@JcoleMc]

Where is you pfp from it looks really cool

[@Biosynchro]

Like folding LCDs...

[@G45H3R]

Any tech that significantly speeds up computing is useful by definition. Just remains to be seen if it will be cost effective.

[@TechnoPandaMedia]

Calling quantum computing a hoax is just clickbait.

[@hydrohasspoken6227]

It is a hoax.

[@hedgehog3180]

@@hydrohasspoken6227 By what definition is quantum computing a hoax? A hoax usually involves wholesale or at least large scale fabircation of something that doesn't actually exist but like quantum computers do exist and do in fact work. The only thing that's happening is that the technology is being hyped but every new technology gets hyped so that hardly means anything.

[@hydrohasspoken6227]

@@hedgehog3180 you will know why it is a hoax within thew next 30 years. you wait.

[@yarghhargh9345]

Quantumcel cope

[@MrMadvillan]

My portfolio is diversified; quantum computing, graphine, robotaxis…

[@LaVidayElTristeFinal]

Hahaha

[@abdulrahmanalsheikhali3162]

NFT

[@omarabdul9905]

Nuclear fusion!!!!

[@newhavencon-py5yy]

Robot Axis?

[@D33S3R]

What about teleportation ?

[@sfkeepay]

“Of what use is a newborn baby?” - Benjamin Franklin

[@josephcunningham5882]

As a PhD candidate working on developing quantum algorithms, let me address 2 of the larger misconceptions in this video: 1) "breaking RSA is the most achievable use case" They say Shor's algorithm is not likely to be feasible any time soon (which is true) and then deduce that all practical applications are infeasible, which is a non-sequitur. In fact Shor's algorithm is a terrible choice for near-term quantum computers. There are many other problems that are much more suitable, such as simulating chemical interactions, calculating material properties or solving types combinatorial optimisation problems. 2) "quantum supremacy was purely to show that we can indeed measure and manipulate qubits". This is just completely wrong. We have been able to do this for ages, long before any claims of quantum supremacy (or 'quantum advantage' as it is now more commonly called). The whole point of quantum advantage is to refute the (EDIT: *extended*) Church-Turing thesis: We want to show that there exist modes of computation that are not (polynomially) equivalent to a classical Turing machine. Or, at least we would like to show a separation between classical and quantum computation. This is also the reason why quantum advantage experiments work on such contrived problems: we need to not only solve the problem, but also prove (or at least provide compelling evidence) that solving the problem classically is very difficult. This last part is very complicated (for context, the problem P =/= NP is similar and we still haven't proved it, even though it has had a bounty of a million dollars for 25 years). This part is even more difficult for problems of practical utility. I cannot comment on the economic case for quantum start-ups, though.

[@samsonsoturian6013]

How can you talk so much but say so little?

[@josephcunningham5882]

@@samsonsoturian6013 Let me simplify it for you then: If your bear case for quantum computing involves Shor's algorithm and RSA, then you have misunderstood something.

[@MaakaSakuranbo]

@@samsonsoturian6013 Cause they're actually explaining instead of making a 30 seconds tiktok short? Seemed quite an informative comment to me.

[@skierpage]

​@@samsonsoturian6013 because quantum computing is a complicated field based on complicated physics! Faced with something so counterintuitive, hard to explain, and divorced from our normal experiences, explainers have three choices: dumb it down to hype it up, oversimplify to show how the eggheads are failing, or take the time to explain the field even though most people won't understand. Just reread the last sentence of commenter's point #1. Quantum computing already has useful but abstruse uses.

[@KevinSterns]

@@josephcunningham5882 The video's assertion that "practical applications are infeasable" was NOT solely derived from "Shor's algorithm is infeasible in the short term." It was also based on the difficulty of achieving guaranteed results. I agree with you that the best use for quantum computing seems to be analysis of chaotic systems. But even those applications seem far, far away. I am baffled that it took a quantum computer a whopping 200 sec to generate a mere 1 million random numbers. Something is missing from this picture. Regardless, random number generation is NOT computation, strictly speaking. Computation involves addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, etc. They didn't do anything like that. Converting random noise into numbers is interesting, but it's not computation. Claiming "quantum supremacy" was a misleading marketing stunt. As to the researchers, I wish them best of luck.

[@rusty6172]

Crazy how the public cannot reconcile in their heads that a research project which may or may not work in the end is not a hoax, it's a money pit. If you invest in research, you are gambling that we can produce a viable product. Of course research projects that are on stock exchanges have to sell themselves optimistically to attract investors, that's just how raising capital works.

[@perfectallycromulent]

So you're saying it's ok to lie for money when you have no idea what your product is good for. Thanks for being so amoral.

[@chuckgarcia5054]

​@@perfectallycromulentthat is just the process of doing research bud

[@rusty6172]

@@perfectallycromulent I'm saying if you took marketing material at face value then you're a fool.

[@FobosLee]

@@perfectallycromulentit's not amoral if it's for science!

[@PaxHeadroom]

​@@rusty6172Well you see we have these things called laws, and one of the things they are meant to discourage is misrepresenting a product or service for monetary gain.

[@SpencerPaire]

I feel like this is one of those cases of a technology being very, very useless and expensive until one of those factors suddenly changes. Most kinds of chemistry, most cryptography, certain mathematical algorithms, spaceflight, and I think even precision chronography all had really serious doubts about their economic benefits when their were nascent. Then, suddenly, a change in cost or accessibility made those technologies very important. To say "this is obviously useless, and will always be useless" shows just as much hubris as saying "this is the best thing ever made". It's only tolerated, because it's easier to 'prove' something is useless on a small timescale in a small paradigm.

[@blackandcold]

There are thousands of usecases waiting for the hardware to catch up. IBM is leading and advances in science and engineering making it step by step possible. If you take the time and dig in you will see the results of decades coming together. The hype is shit as always but the tech is real. Not like crypto overhype and "AI" probabilistic text generators. Physicist and Engineer here actively following the are. I won't watch this video because the author is not qualified to talk about the topic.

[@keenantroll5151]

@@blackandcold The video is mostly debunking the hype - clarifying that quantum computers are nowhere near what the headlines make them sound like, that the promises made so far are completely baseless. WSM is not saying that it's for sure BS, just that it's got orders of magnitude to go, and highlighting the nonsense of wall street's behavior surrounding it

[@nowknow]

I'm a computer engineer and I mostly design low level application specific hardware and ICs but quantum computing has long been an interest of mine and is directly tied into my work as a successor to the transistor, the very tool I use to design and build out hardware. I think calling this a hoax is a gross injustice for all the people out there involved in developing this fascinating technology and to say nothing practical has come from them is just wrong in my view. While you might not think it practical, the knowledge and tools actively being developed from quantum machines is absolutely astounding and has been creating waves in my field. From developing new forms of matter like time crystals to UQ Connect transferring information at unimaginable speed.

[@ii8283]

Very nuanced response. His videos are not nearly as nuanced. He's always an overly pessimistic response to an absolutely unrealistic level of optimism, and it leaves out that nuance. I'm always extremely bearish on new tech, especially claiming that it will be a revolution, but I have no doubt that incredibly smart people are working on things I don't understand to one day make that thing usable for me. The story of how long cellphones were around before anyone in the public knew about them taught me that.

[@DynesLair-kb6qs]

It's important to note that quantum computing itself isn't a hoax. It is making tangible progress and has very real world applications. That being said, where there is opportunity, there will always be people ready to try to exploit it. That's where the hoax lies.

[@physicswithpark3r-x3x]

it does not help that 'quantum leap" is a vernacular term for great and sudden progress; thus legally the adjective _quantum_ enjoys the same status as "new and improved"

[@jake12466]

​@@physicswithpark3r-x3x I was hoping ANT-MAN AND THE WASP did enough to correct the definion of "quantum" in the public consciousness to mean "very tiny."

[@xliquidity3914]

Software Developer here. Technological innovations like AI, Blockchain, and Quantum Computing are legit, but many companies hype up the benefits without the tech being ready. So the average person sees it as a scam, failure, or useless.

[@peacefulexistence_]

And then make angry videos like this one shitting on the cool tech and the rest of us that actually like, work with or rely on the technology are shat on :/

[@TheCurtisnixon]

add a little dunning krueger, and you get vids like this. :D

[@gubunki]

yea this video wont age well, but same could be said about other videos of this channel

[@JorgeStolfi]

Well, blockchain technology, for one, is pure snake oil. It is to IT as Crystal Therapy is to medicine. So, if you are comparing AI and QC to it... 😜

[@jeffsetter213]

These guys are making this way to complicated. I expertly controlled my Qbert with a one-button Atari joystick all the way back in 1984.

[@NightRogue77]

The squares were both red and blue until u hopped on them

[@samsonsoturian6013]

Well, that dates you, doesn't it?

[@NightRogue77]

@@samsonsoturian6013 Pfffft. Get in line

[@Iburn247]

​@@samsonsoturian6013 no

[@Iburn247]

​​@@samsonsoturian6013 he could be 40,41 or 141. You never know

[@abiuniverse]

One of the best applications of quantum computers is the ability to solve complex physics problems (basically simulation at the atomic scale or lower), which can have infinite applications in the future if we succeed. I work with quantum algorithms to get it working, and it is a really, really tough problem to crack.

[@thegray5730]

Snake oil salesmen. Diet snake oil, vegan snake oil, organic snake oil, crypto snake oil, reusable snake oil, solar snake oil, and now....quantum snake oil.

[@WQ94]

Hahahaha 😂😂😂😂. Funniest comment I read today.

[@I-l-l-l-l-l]

Don’t forget fusion snake oil.

[@richardconway6425]

Hey, you forgot "erectile-dysfunction" snake oil. You just rub it in !! 😂

[@thepro08]

dont forget wallstreet printing money oil snake.....

[@noway8233]

Green Hidrogen Snake oil😅

[@404maxnotfound]

I hate this relatively new trend when money, marketing and hype take over innovations in technology and reduce them to scams that worsen preexisting products or make new useless barely functional products. It happened with Blockchains it happened with Quantum Computing and now it's happening with AI.

[@skierpage]

It's not relatively new. Companies hyping their potential to raise money is as old as can be. And the hype cycle _doesn't_ reduce the technology to "scams", W$M was lazy and wrong to use "hoax" in this video's title when they meant "hype." Quantum computers are useful at modeling quantum states and slowly progressing to solve useful problems. AI is obviously useful, millions of people are paying subscriptions to chatbots and image generators.

[@asandax6]

​@@skierpage Millions of people are also paying for porn so that's not a good way of measuring usefulness.

[@skierpage]

@@asandax6 OK, so come up with a better metric of usefulness. At the most basic level, if your writing skills are weak or English is not your first language, an AI will turn your bad writing into perfect English and do a good job of translating it into other languages. That's valuable to a billion people. Sundar Pichai said AI is writing 25% of Google's code. Mathematicians, physicists, and chemists are using LLMs to quickly explore their ideas for possible proofs and approaches. The person who is using an AI to be more productive will take your job.

[@alejandrolopeztobon1643]

Great video! One note: in curing cancer(s) while quantum computers may help in drug development that’s not the toughest part. The difficulty is in finding a target for the drug that eliminates the cancer cells without affecting healthy ones.

[@404maxnotfound]

It's like how AI helped developing a COVID vaccine. Researchers already basically knew how to make a vaccine. They just needed a way to simulate and test it, they didn't need to use AI it just was a little faster. Cancer research has been going on for decades yet we have no idea how to make a "cure all". How can quantum computing help simulating an answer when we don't even have a question.

[@honor9lite1337]

Solution: Human Trials.

[@laz0rbra1n]

The difficulty is finding an economic incentive to cure cancer, when treating the disease is much more lucrative.

[@Biosynchro]

@@laz0rbra1n It will be up to rogue researchers to find cancer cures.

[@relaxnation1773]

I think this topic went over his head a little. He is correct in saying that these companies most likely will fail, but he does not understand quantum computing well enough

[@lephtovermeet]

I agree with you general thesis but not all of your conclusions. Quantum computing is in it's infancy and the absurd public investment hype is astounding. That being said, progress isn't linear and breakthroughs aren't necessarily what we expected. The amount of breakthroughs that came out of NASA and DARPA initiatives which weren't their intended goal is mind boggling. Without publicly funded experimental technology within clear monetization paths we wouldn't have: the internet, GPS, modern aviation, so much in healthcare, the human genome mapped, wireless technologies etc. Most of these prohects didn't start out with someone saying I'm going to invent wireless communication and cell phones, no they started out with people pursuing interesting techjologies like transistors, silicone computing, more robust computing etc. then other tangential or progressive breakthroughs come out of the projects. You are right, quantum computing research is q fraction of a percent of the US annual budget. And like fusion, maybe it'll never happen, maybe we'll gave a sudden breakthrough in 50 years or 1 year, who knows. But we'll likely get all sorts of interesting research and technologies out of these projects like new super conductors, matnetic shielding, ultra-low temp processing methods, who knows. If we only ever pursued what will give us a profit right now or next quarter, the world would only be banks, real estate, and superficial pleasures - many argue the point of academia is to pursue the unknown.

[@JoeRogansGutBiome]

Breakthrough in quantum computing is just around the corner. We just need a couple more series, Rounds 300, fundraising to a valuation at 90 Centillion bit-turds

[@TiberianFiend]

Quantum computing is one of those technologies that's always "just a few years away," like cold fusion, fuel cell cars, or nanobots.

[@CaptainHero-h1q]

And All what we ever wanted was Flying Cars!

[@skierpage]

Cold fusion was an incredible lab result that other teams couldn't replicate. It's basically over. Diffusion companies getting money are resigned to establishing the crazy high temperatures and pressures at which we know fusion occurs. Hydrogen fuel cell cars are here, the technologies are mature and in production. In California, the only state to blow $100M on 40 public H2 refueling stations, about 1,000 people a year buy a Toyota Mirai or Hyundai Nexo, but only after manufacturers offer $15,000 in fuel credit. Every car company bar them and BMW and Honda has abandoned HFCVs because battery electric vehicles are cheaper to buy, cheaper to refuel, and can be "refueled" at home. The nanobot dream of self-replicating robots recursively assembling smaller versions of themselves (I remember Zyvex in 1997) ran into hard physical problems of stiction and power supply. But micro-machining, 3-D mechanical lithography, and scanning tunneling microscopes that can move single atoms are all commercially available, and other researchers realized that DNA already precisely assembles molecules and are repurposing it. Watch Veritasium's video on the world's smallest Nerf gun. The field changed and developed in all these different directions. The hype cycle is common to many new technologies, but the progress of each technology is very different. Wall Street Millennial has a tiresome propensity to fit every technology story into the same narrative.

[@ollieoniel]

Hey, go harvest some tiberian. I didn't pay you to comment here.

[@incendiarist]

​@@skierpage *mark rober's video, but yes

[@dvidsilva]

When I moved to Silicon Valley over a decade ago I was hoping to connect with dreamers trying to change the world and got frustrated at the amount of wasted potential. A lot of delusional indifferent people

[@ryanshaw4250]

ya know, im not dillusional, im dissalusioned.

[@reality-xi3rs]

you know, im something of a delusion person myself.

[@MakerInMotion]

There's still huge opportunities in Silicon Valley. Get into auto glass replacement and sidewalk feces removal. Absolutely booming right now.

[@ritac9769]

Lol I call bullshit. Dreamers are the delusional ones. The people who do change the world are the capitalists and con men. There's no wasted potential, just a bunch of people over hyping their unproven science. The people who are cautious and realistic and have the greatest actual potential aren't the ones getting money because they aren't willing to exaggerate claims.

[@DaweSMF]

Maybe if your name was Marty McFly and you had DeLorean. World changed, people changed, everything changed. Its not easy if not impossible to catch lightning into bottle twice. I had probably similar feeling few times already, in 90s after our revolution (there was communist regime here) we thought we did win, we can finaly start our own business, connect with each other and make money... in reality it was curse in disguise, when we were communists, regular people (not party members and high officials) everyone had the same things (nothing), there were not much differences in status, we had the same sh*t and were on the same sh*ty boat. People had closer to each other since they could relate to others. Nowdays there are huge social differences, envy and greed. I think its called progress and its worldwide, i imagined it different way, i thought people will use the opportunity to change things, no, its just petty squabbles like everywhere.

[@YouTube_is_full_of_trolls]

This seems a bit biased, but overall, it's interesting to hear another take. I say biased because of calling it a hoax and also excusing data that doesn't agree with your position. For example saying that the majority of researchers say it possible because they can't go back on their previous beliefs.

[@108chapin]

Grant chasing 101.

[@WillMoon]

Actually, as someone who DOES work in the field, it's pretty revolutionary stuff. I mean, deny it if you want, but Q-Day is going to change your life. Probably never going to see a miniaturized quantum processor tho, it would defy the laws of physics, but you will likely see quantum mainframes as Cloud-based centralized compute hubs that you'll be able to use and access remotely over ultra high speed fiber.

[@LadyBits2023]

not only is that is super weird thing to lie about in the comments of a KZbin video.... The unfortunate reality is not only will you not see that in your lifetime but neither will your children... It's like you didn't even watch the video...

[@porteal8986]

you gonna back that up at all?

[@LeeSeanSullivan]

They were saying this 30 tears ago, I did electronics at college and my tutor said he was waiting for it in the next 5 years.

[@TRAPONOMICS]

@@LadyBits2023 the kid in the video doesn't even know what he's talking about if were being honest. He obviously did underclassmen in college level research on a topic which he was skeptical in, he has no subject matter expertise to draw on, just conjecture.

[@jamm8284]

​@@LadyBits2023you are watching a finance channel not a tech channel. While he also points out at the beginning that he knows nothing about quantum computing 🤦🏻‍♂️😂

[@martinschlegel1823]

Some of these claims of quantum computing aren’t in principle unfounded. The quantum algorithms to do such things do already exist and we are working on the hardware. As an IT guy I see this as less of an overhype than AI. It is hard to say how long it will take us or if we will ever have usefull quantum computers, and it’s probably best to ask physicists instead of programmers like me, the logic/mathematical side is mostly solved. And quantum computers can do stuff that normal computers just can’t. In theory you can send a search request to a database and get your response back and can prove that nobody, not even the Server the database is running on, knows what you asked for. Nowadays quantum computers are useless. But it is hard for me to judge how far we are from more useful machines.

[@markseidler3251]

I remember the promise of fusion power, cold fusion, 3-D printing, VR headsets, the metaverse, cryogenics, and the singularity. All have come true!

[@lexsapla]

Saying that most scientists are supporting quantum computer research because they benefit from it, is not accurate. Most physicists clearly are not involved with quantum computer research, yet they are somewhat optimistic for the long run. I’m not saying that the research will definitely yield results, but no research has a guaranteed outcome to begin with.

[@johnjakson444]

I am an actual semiconductor engineer and I have worked on many complex chips that would be very difficult to explain to the lay person. But when I see the hype for Quantum Computing and AI, I cringe at the lies, AI will deliver about 10-20% of the hype but it will feel shallow. QC will deliver maybe 1% of its hype. The stupid combination of QC plus AI will deliver exactly 0.00000000% of that hype. It is kind of amazing that IBM is in the lead of QC and AI, but it will still become irrelevant in the near future.

[@nishantahvan]

Everyone asking same question, can we play GTA 6 on it ?

[@psaikrisgaming5866]

A correction. At 3:36, replace qubits with bits and you have the basis of computing today. The states each qubit can take is not just 0 and 1 but every unique stable superimposition that you can make with them.

[@texchu8331]

What you described is how normal computer bits work. One bit can be 0 or 1, so you can represent two numbers. With two bit, you can represent 4 numbers (00, 01, 10, 11). With 3 bits, 8 numbers. It is exponential. If try to make a quantum computer be deterministic like a regular computer, there is no advantage. Quantum computers willl never replace normal computers. That would be like saying GPUs will make CPUs obselete. No, they have different functions. You say things like the non-deterministic nature of qbits and entanglment are a problem, but it's exactly these things you need to take advantage of to make quantum computers a better tool at specialized tasks. This is why random number generation is the base use case - deterministic computers aren't good to generating random numbers. But there are many ways to generate random numbers. It's gotta do more than that. That's where various simulations come into play - what simulations could the special properties of quantum computer inherently mimic? Will they ever be useful? Well, the main problem is the laughably small amount of qbits. These machines have so many problems working reliably that that they can't be scaled up.

[@MaakaSakuranbo]

Yeah, this. Too many just see it as "It'll be a faster PC!" or something. When it's just for a different class of problems and algorithms

[@Iconoclasher]

A trillion dollar computer creates a $100,000,000 pill to cure cancer. Nice!😂

[@ASMRsauce]

TLDR: quantum computers can’t do anything useful.

[@jephyin]

Yet. Analog computers led to digital computers but it wasn't an overnight shift. Like everything else tech/science involved, it just takes time and research. What the video forgets is that regular computers also just set and transmit bits. It took a long ass time before we turned 1s and 0s into graphical displays, word processors, web browsers, etc. This video basically showed me the difference between gathering information on an unfamiliar subject and having foundational knowledge to actually understand that information. You can tell just by how fast the video went through qubit states that the writer would not be able to effectively communicate the difference between outputs from a classical analog state machine and a quantum state machine. tldr for my comment: It's another patience game. Quantum computers will be practically useless for a while, but then they *very* suddenly won't be.

[@schwingedeshaehers]

they can find prime factors for large numbers faster (theoretically, when they strong enough)

[@skierpage]

Yet. Modeling quantum states like the ground states of molecules would be very useful for chemistry (hence the hyped claims of solving cancer and climate change), and today's machines seem close.

[@NN-rs1ny]

​​@@skierpage that's what i always thought QC would be able to do but by the video it seems to me that it claims that even if we get a Quantum Coumputer there wouldn't be anything tangible or solid for it to do , my thing is how are we creating something that is supposed to use something that we don't even comprehend how it works

[@Derpy1969]

I wonder if it could make TLDRs without having to search for them in the comments.

[@philipmeisterl]

Imagine a long comment that says something thats said in the video but because im so early i didnt see the whole video

[@jamm8284]

The irony that the 27 minute video was put up 47 minutes ago and you posted 2 minutes later complaining about people commenting before they watched the video 🤦🏻‍♂️😂😂

[@Spectacurl]

I’m a physicist and computer scientist: this video is very well researched. Congratulations guys. I agree with most of the argument. My disagreements will be only in form.

[@yoweedmofo19897]

Do you agree though that what Google did was not actually "quantum computing"? While I agree that the "quantum supremacy" debate, at the moment at least, is just about hype and marketing, when he argues that all they did was "manipulate the qubits and then observe them", something he claims has a use case of "absolutely nothing", how is that not PRECISELY what quantum computing is? That is literally how every quantum algorithm, including Shor's, is carried out. It shows a concerning lack of understanding of the underlying theory that this quote made the final cut.

[@Rivinwin]

@wallstreetmillenial I think you need to separate the journalists from the institutions from the scientists. Those three groups have wildly different goals, but your video implies that the technology itself is lacking while picking apart the journalistic headlines.

[@bigjared8946]

"It's not useful for anything" misses the point of Tech Grifting. It doesn't have to do anything except generate hype, which leads to gullible investor capital coming in and, if you play your cards right, a massively overvalued IPO. You can make a lot of money without ever producing anything useful, or even anything at all. This is all you need to be a very successful Founder™in this realm. This is the foundation of an entire business model. The key to it is always having some kind of hype bubble in action. Big Data, IoT, Meta, Juicero, VR, Hyperloop, full FSD by ______, etc. "AI" and quantum computing are just the current year iterations. Generate hype, convert hype into capital, pocket the capital.

[@skierpage]

Be specific. Which quantum computing companies are not producing actual quantum computers? Which ones are "pocketing the capital" instead of spending huge amounts on R&D to establish and control quantum circuits? This hype cycle is nothing like Juicero or Hyperloop. It's unknown if it will be like web 2.0.

[@KevinSterns]

@@skierpage A glaring example right in the video: Zapata. 20:53.

[@skierpage]

@@KevinSterns thanks, maybe Zapata did pocket the capital; "Zapata had shifted to generative AI solutions" sounds like chasing buzzwords. But W$M's characterization "they were trying to create software when the hardware doesn't even work yet" is wrong. The hardware _does_ work, but it's noisy. So designing quantum algorithms that produce useful results despite the noise is potentially valuable. Hype, sure. Hoax? Not so.

[@pbeeby]

Agree with this. Late stage capitalism is highly financialised and increasingly based on rampant speculation about a future product that may or may not come to fruition. As they said in robocop “ who cares if it works etc etc”

[@keithgoh123]

Quantum computing should still be in the lab and receiving private or government funding, instead of going public like they have a deliverable product.

[@jonz23m]

Nah, there is better use of taxpayer money than this clown tech

[@ajspice]

The airplane analogy doesn't work. There is a big difference between a hang glider and a fighter jet. One has to remember that only 60 years passed between the invention of the airplane and the moon landing. Not to mention, technology moves at a faster and faster pace every generation. The first cell phones were made in the 60's. Thirty years later they were somewhat common. Ten years later, they were everywhere. Nowadays, not only are they everywhere, but they are exponentially more powerful than computers from even a decade ago.

[@hedgehog3180]

Which cell phone was made in the 60s?

[@asandax6]

For rockets you have to start way back from fireworks in China.

[@AlbinosaurusR3X]

Imagine you invent the wheel and it was a time-consuming and expensive process. Your sales pitch is that you can use this giant rounded stone to bash squirrels in one go--like the Feds. People correctly point out that they already have clubs, so your "wheel" idea is dumb and a waste of resources. Nobody can predict the staggering scale of infrastructural growth that will depend on millions of shipping trucks around the world to deliver the highest quality of living and lowest rates of hunger in human history. The problem isn't that it "doesn't have a use." The problem is that we're paying the wrong salesman. We have no idea what Q-computing will be capable of. It's in a superposition of true and not true, and we can't know which state it will take until we run the experiment and observe the results.

[@mmurmurjohnson2368]

Being able to reliably and cheaply write and track information on a molecular substrate if successful would have a ton of use cases if not necessarily so practical for computing. I think most high dollar investors are quietly reading between the lines for proprietary reasons.

[@skierpage]

... that's not what a quantum computer does. Entangled qubits enter a weird state that can be manipulated to solve various abstruse problems (primarily modeling the quantum states of matter that underlie chemistry), but it's not a useful way to write and track information.

[@ucantSQ]

Room temperature superconductors will do to quantum computers what the transistor did to vacuum tube computers.

[@maanast]

We can use it but we need a break through in materials, infrastructure, newer code base to suit quantum computing and many other technologies it may be down the line . We just don’t know when

[@bobz1736]

The simplest test is "Has Cathie Wood invested in Quantum Computers?"

[@YamiVT]

Reminds me of how string theorists have been hoaxing huge amounts of money by pretending they're close to a breakthrough for 30 years

[@skierpage]

It's not really like that. String theory is a speculative attempt to reconcile general relativity and quantum theory. Quantum physics is weird but it must have some correspondence with reality because the predictions of Quantum field Theory match experimental results to a dozen digits of precision. Quantum Computing is both a fruitful research area a hard engineering challenge to build something useful out of the properties of entangled qubits, but it's not speculative.

[@NN-rs1ny]

​@@skierpageI don't men that sounds too much like religion to me " the messiah will come back to earth we just have to wait "

[@hedgehog3180]

String Theory isn't a hoax, it's just a theory that failed to pan out but that's literally just what research is like. I'm sorry but not everything can be a huge breakthrough and not everyone can be Einstein, sometimes research just fails.

[@skierpage]

@@NN-rs1ny the Spectrum IEEE paper detailing how a low-ish noise 16-qubit computer will be able to calculate the ground state of molecules doesn't sound religious! You can label the belief that we'll construct such a low-noise quantum computer (which might need ~16,000 qubits in an error-correcting configuration) an act a faith, but multiple groups are making undeniable engineering progress towards that goal, unlike waiting around for a messiah. And research into using today's noisy quantum computers to do useful simulation and modeling continues. E.g. this month "Qunova Computing’s recent breakthrough using its HiVQE algorithm not only achieved chemical accuracy on several NISQ quantum computers but also accelerated computations by 1,000 times." Probably some hype involved.

[@zaibian7]

​@@hedgehog3180 Even Einstein didn't get to finish his work, that's what string theory is trying to do. Sometimes the research is unfinished, which is the current state of string theory. So it hasn't reached a point where it can be deemed a failure yet. That's due to it being currently untestable, you can't say a theory is a success or failure if you can't test it. There are many theories that may remain untested indefinitely because they can't be proven in the lab. They can only be inferred mathematically, but some of the implications may have practical applications for other fields of research. That's the nature of hard research, the benefits are not always immediate or useful until decades later. That's why businesses don't participate in hard scientific research, they're not prepared to wait that long. That's why it's up to governments and universities. Every product we use today would not exist without the hard science on which it was built. Left to business we'd still be walking everywhere except when trying to outrun the occasional tiger.

[@Escape_The_Mundane]

I am studying this, yes decohernce is main problem. We have to understand the physics. Us government believes quantum computing possible by 2033. I heard they are building quantum campus in chicago.

[@chebrubin]

Adjacent to Obhamas Presedential Library.

[@Escape_The_Mundane]

@chebrubin I think you mean Trump and Biden library. I am all the way from South carolina.

[@sqeekykleen49]

The particle acceleration device in texas... there would be a use for it...

[@stuartmcintosh9904]

I've probably watched a dozen videos explaining qubits and quantum entanglement. By highlighting the fragility and impracticality of these machines, this video finally made it all 'click' in my head. Thanks for that.

[@FerintoshFarmsPhotography]

That moment you realize the computer from hitchhikers was scary accurate

[@potatoduck7664]

Personally, I strongly disagree with the premise of this video. One of the most monumental applications of Quantum Computing is coming up with ML Algorithms which classical computers can utilize to solve problems much more efficiently. The advantage of a Quantum Computer lies in simultaneous computation, meaning we can explore hundreds of thousands of avenues in a single computation. Unlike a classical computer which can only give a singular output at a time (as you correctly pointed out in the video). List of things done on a Quantum Computer in recent times: 1. Created a Holographic Wormhole in a Quantum Computer (will have lasting impacts on the potential merger of Relativistic and Quantum Mechanics). 2. Rotating Black Hole with Quantum Effects. 3. Volkswagen's pilot program in Beijing optimizing taxi routes to improve traffic. 4. Quantum machine learning. 5. Variational Quantum Algorithms (VQAs). Feel free to ask me any questions as I'm specializing in Quantum Information Science.

[@simplyme5324]

I don't like the comparison. Comparing quantum computers in the 1990s and claiming we haven't seen much progress is like the nice quote from IBM chair from 1943 "The world will only have use for 5 computers ever." In the 90s manufacturing a single qubit was like manufactoring a digital computer from transistors in the 1940s. The computers from that time used big "bulps" and the switch to transistor technology came only much later. People used analog computers. Digital computing with transistors began in the 1960s and even then it took 20 years up to the 80s to even manufacture small chips (microchips) and small computers that could be carried. Looking at the history of computing and how long it took to develop something as complex as a laptop or smartphone compared to Zuse's Z4 from the 40s we could also jump back to the 40s or 50s and claim digital computers to be a long running scam. The technology that goes into building the technology for the chip, the readout from the hardware, error correction algorithms etc to even come up with something as complex as an operating system and all the miniturization that went into making chips able to be manufactored at massive scale took decades to build. Quantum computers are simple systems that operate with logic gates - just like digital computers did once. There are different hardware implementations that are competing one against the other. An analogy would be to compare a transistor chip to a chip with light bulbs to a mechanical computer to any other fancy way of building logic gates and cramping them together. Only because nowadays technology seems to evolve faster this does not mean that quantum computing itself is a scam. It is only ahead of its time and massively overhyped. If I promised in the 60s someone that a digital computer will one day fit into my pocket and is more powerful than the computers that put astronauts on the moon - this claim would have been bogus too. No matter what budget there would have been no way to manufacture a smartphone in the 60s within 1 or 2 decades. And the billions invested into quantum technology are a fraction of what humanity invested in 90 years into advancing digital computing.

[@thecrackin-u8p]

Research is VERY expensive...this is research, what may come we wont know for many years but that's how research works and its need money.. A LOT OF MONEY

[@-_-----]

No, this is another B.S. paradigm sold as "The Monied Interests" have taken over the USA. Most of the ingenuity that took place in the entire industrial revolution -AND- the Software Revolution actually happened during periods of frugality and inspiration by "small inventors". It was since the highly-dubious Manhattan Project and the Post-WW2 "Centralization" attitude that swept the USA that this notion that "research can only be done at unlimited debt-fueled expense to the public and in total secret" took over the culture. Larger and more complicated projects (as well as the build-out of their practical, everyday forms and manufactory process) do indeed take more money, but it's a LINEAR relationship between Effort-Inputted-And-Productive-Effort-Extracted, not an exponentially-increasing ratio between the two as it is now -> When you get to the point of having, 5x, 10x, 20x, 50x, 100x, 200x, and 1000x the input for vaguer-and-vaguer Value Propositions, the probability that those ventures are actually just Corporate / Industrial Pyramid Schemes goes up to a CERTAINTY. Look at the TOKOMAK and similar projects as one example; Inertial Confinement reactors already beat them in almost every aspect at a FRACTION of the lifetime and R&D cost, complexity, etc.... and Inertial Confinement Reactors receives no attention, and Billions keep pouring into these other projects. Once you realize that "Those At The Top" are not interested in making a BIGGER PIE, and are only interested in trouncing each-other to TAKE PIECES OF THE EXISTING PIE, you'll understand why everyone's "ALWAYS RESEARCHING" and "Breakthroughs are Always 10-20 years away".

[@Kashchey1]

Can quantum computer run Crysis?

[@wojteks2481]

It can and it cannot at the same time.

[@matthew.m.stevick]

🥁

[@JorgeStolfi]

The biggest hurdle of quantum computing is getting the qubits "entangled". With conventional computers, you can put multiple processors in parallel, working independently, or connect them in a pipeline so that each one takes data from the previous one and feeds results to the next one. Either way, if with 100 processors, the combination can do 100 times more computations per second than a single processor can. Quantum processors (QPs) promise to turn that "linear" speedup into "exponential" speedup, so that if a QP with 5 qubits can do (say) a million computations per second, one with 10 qubits can do one million squared -- that is, one trillion -- per second. Not just two million. However, for that to be true, you cannot just put two 5-qubit processors in parallel, or connect them in a pipeline. All 10 qubits must be intimately connected -- "entangled" -- in an extremely delicate way, so that each qubit can "sense" not just the state of its two neighbors, but the myriad of superposed combinations of states of the other nine. And this becomes exponentially harder as the number of qubits increases: adding just one more qubit to the processor will make it (say) twice as likely that the entanglement will fail. Google and IBM may have QP chips with thousands of qubits, but it is not clear how well entangled those qubits are. If the chip actually contains 100 QPs with 10 qubits each, connected in parallel or pipeline, the computing power will be like 100 x 2^10 = 100'000 rather than the naively assumed 2^1000 = 1 babagazidoobazillion. So the big question is whether the exponential difficulty of entanglement can be overcome. Maybe not; maybe there is a fundamental physical principle that makes effective quantum computing as impossible as a faster-than-light travel, time travel, or perpetual motion. It seems that very few in the quantum computing field are thinking hard about this fundamental question. Perhaps because they suspect that the answer will not be good for the stock price...

[@mriz]

hey man i like your contents, but the progress of tech is not linear actually. if we can succeed this is REALLY yuge. billions dollars of wasteful money justifiable for what we can gain with quantum computing. the world really run on material science and quantum computing can help it compare to classical computing.

[@aghhhog2655]

I think you’re missing the point of the channel, Qc companies are a terrible investment that definitely won’t payoff in the short or medium term ( perhaps even long term lol)

[@mriz]

@aghhhog2655 i know, but for investors you only need one to succeed to gain MASSIVE position in industry

[@G45H3R]

Why in the world would I listen to anything you have to say??? Your very first statement is that you are not physicists and know little about the subject of the video. So disingenuous. This is the problem with the internet. Fools with an opinion who state it as fact. Stick to something you can speak on with authority.

[@terabit.]

1:07 Here we see a "Quantum computer" along with a "Quantum Stupidity"

[@Ludak021]

Sounds like a perfect computer for Boeing.

[@SolidCoreBlack]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@NN-rs1ny]

😂😂

[@MrCameronChung]

I am not sure you assessment is correct... Think about this, the current transistor technology is relying on two states (0,1). Programming language are then developed to translate every instructions into binary (0,1). Now, imagine a machine that can handle qbit states (lets say 1...17). Image the number of instructions required to represent something in 17 possible states instead of 2 states. How more efficient (quicker) will it be? The real problems with quantum computing are :1. The technology is SUPER FINICKY. (i.e. requiring near absolute zero and etc...) Most people can setup a Quantum computer in their garage. 2. Because the technology is unavailable to the mass and there are a lot of different quantum designs (1..17, 1...8, etc) , there are no high level programming language available for developer to develop more useful program. If you think there is no practical use of quantum computing, let say it absolutely has the potential to CRACK ANY CODE or ENCRYPTION in the world. How much you think this ability alone can be worth? (Food for thoughts)

[@bradburley8008]

lol @ Dr. Jackinoff

[@apathyreview3964]

He speaks the truth. On the other hand big companies are bleeding cash into this.They wouldn't be doing that unless it was close. Remember that we also thought practical AI was years away.Some thought never.

[@GoldenAgeMath]

I’m a big fan of this channel, but this episode was a big miss. To make a long comment short, quantum computing will actually be really useful for a lot of things! There will be many applications in chemistry, materials science, engineering and manufacturing. Not to mention that 99% of the applications have not been found yet. But seriously, no one is claiming that quantum computers will replace all computers.

[@NN-rs1ny]

He is claiming that QC is not going to be able to do all of that bc we dont even know if it can . He's kinda right?

[@hedgehog3180]

@@NN-rs1ny No he isn't. We do in fact know that quantum computers are capable of these things and unless you believe the minority of pessimistic researchers who say that quantum computers can never work this is just a question of developing more powerful quantum computers.

[@springinfialta106]

When we get fusion working we can use all that relatively cheap and safe energy to cool down millions of qbits.

[@TS-ij9cz]

A pipe dream my friend

[@abrahamedelstein4806]

16:09 To make the analogy more poignant, Otto Lilienthal's hang-glider was a dead end, it inspired other aviation pioneers like the Wrights but that's all it did because when the Wrights went through Lilienthal's data they basically concluded that everything was wrong and had to almost start from scratch.

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

However, the French then decided all of the Wright's ideas were not worth using, and massively improved airplanes to a useable vehicle. The Wright's were flying the same "1903" flyer in the early 1915!?!

[@abrahamedelstein4806]

@@DumbledoreMcCracken I wouldn't say all of the ideas, the Wright propeller for example but yes the Wright flyer was mostly a dead end but it was a practical, working aeroplane in the sense that Lilienthal's glider never could have been. The Wrights solved a lot of problems that others hadn't even thought about which is why when they first came to Europe they were leaps ahead. But the analogy still stands, that the first company to develop a practical quantum computer might still have a lot of dead ends.

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

@@abrahamedelstein4806 well, I read about 80% of the book about Montgomery in California. Very enlightening. I'll just leave with: I'm not a fan of the Wrights

[@mitchellsteindler]

This is pretty demeaning to the people doing actual research to actually advance the science and engineering significantly. Your clickbait is shameful.

[@atrumluminarium]

Wtf do you mean hoax? The physics is real and the research is constantly pushing forward. Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean it's a hoax.

[@-_-----]

This principle cuts both ways: Just because there are some fairly-quantitatively-consistent mathematical models and laboratory observations that could *possibly* be implemented into a machine with *possible* uses at some point in the future...... does not mean that the technology isn't in-fact being used as a smokescreen for a pyramid scheme (aka, a "hoax") here-and-now in the real world.

[@abuferasabdullah]

Zabara should be the core of this episode. Great work buddy

[@davidx.1504]

I remember when this channel focused on overhyped companies with bad business models and degrading finances. Nowadays it spends every 2nd or 3rd vid bashing technology that's still maturing.

[@Zen_Power]

I noticed that. The channel isn’t a Tesla fan

[@aghhhog2655]

Well he was right about EV companies being overvalued in 2022

[@shadeblackwolf1508]

The theory behind why Quantum computers are worth a lot of money i fwe can make them, is that, rather than trying a model with one value, we can try it with a superposition of all possible values, and try to make all invalid results cancel out. This isn't just a chemistry aid. Climate modelling has a lot of unknowns and is a chaotic system, so exploring many parallel paths and to find the best one is really powerful here.

[@themidnightbeing]

7:33 The statement that Quantum Computers can't do anything useful is something I cannot personally accept. Computation came from Loom and punch cards - tell them you can store color images , and they will laugh. Do these technologies have to be researched? Absolutely. Are the applications ready ? Of course not . E-commerce was not thought of when DARPA made networks. Is it financially healthy to launch them to IPOs? For a research project, absolutely not . I wanted to listen to the financial aspects of Quantum computing today - but if the argument is built with the same framework as a matured technology with provable financials, you are not comparing apples and oranges - you are debasing your own arguement. Personal opinion over here from someone not invested financially in this technology at all - I am just looking.

[@Ne0Freedom]

By 2040, Quantum Computers will be used for two things: 1) create encryption keys, for SSL, PGP, etc. 2) break encryption, SSL, PGP, etc.

[@PersimmonHurmo]

this channel has a financial incentive to downplay everything they show, as it is a shorting channel, using its logic we would still be using mechanical computers at best early on investment in nascent technologies is risky, so i agree that the general public should stay away from it, it is the governments that carry the early financial burden like for computers, space technology and the internet

[@pureum1720]

quantum computing can be useful for massive simulations. But the technology is extremely challenging....there are more physicists who disagree about the quantum computer's future actually because of the instability. But many investors flock to the potential...always do your due diligence and manage your risk. God bless us all!

[@samuelappiah8395]

To claim quantum computing to be a hoax is ridiculous and asinine. It might be in a development stage but it can revolutionize the world

[@johnbeardslee3811]

Agreed, the title is a bit click-baity but he does a reasonably balanced job of pointing out that this technology could be a dead end or be many, many years away from being practical. I initially got excited about this when it started becoming more popular but I came to understand the practical aspects (like needing to keep the qbits at near zero temps) make it likely to be a technology relegated to a niche use case (my guess is academia) unless there's some revolutionary development which overcomes some of these issues.

[@rambodude467]

just like nuclear energy was supposed to revolutionize the world 50 years ago ?

[@MaakaSakuranbo]

@@johnbeardslee3811 Academia can produce results and insights that can be developed into technologies which will have an impact. So even if it's "niche" it can change stuff by proxy of that

[@TehPwnerer]

The parallels between the quantum cure all woes and the current AI version of the same are striking.

[@HCG]

It’s quite difficult to accurately explain complex technical systems in a simple and interesting enough way for average people to understand, yet you did it very well. Great job

[@jacobcaplan6350]

Whay email do I contact to cancel my subscription to the website?

[@buddymartin3609]

My mother caught me manipulating my qbits and said so many observations would make me go blind 😮

[@thecrackin-u8p]

1 clap

[@dominik13579]

😐😑

[@Norman-z3s]

I have no idea if quantum computing will ever be useful. However, as a physicist I can tell you it’s quite a bit of fun to try and understand. A great intellectual pursuit indeed.

[@SpottedHares]

I mean after the development of the semi conductor transistor theirs been this need to spin that a major breakthrough is just around the corner that will change everything. It took just short of 50 years from the first internal combustion engine to having one powerful and light enough to construct the first plane, and almost another 50 years before we had another engine strong enough to break the hold of gravity. It’s easy to say that we will have a breakthrough in the next few years, it’s hard to commit to developing a technology for the next 50 or 100 years when it doesn’t provide instant financial rewards.

[@FALprofessional]

Spot on and well said. Humanity is habitually near-sighted and can seldom see beyond their lifespans.

[@peterprokop]

I do understand quantum computing, and played with it from time to time for almost 30 years, we had a simulator in Berlin from the GMD I a had access to, and I played with IBM quantum stuff that is accessible in the cloud. I agree with your opinion. What we have so far is just quantum circuits that can be formed by quantum gates. Running a quantum program is like running marbles through a terrain you put obstacles onto and look at where they end up. But while I do not see a quantum computer doing something useful in my lifetime, I think it is well spent money because we will learn intersting things about our world, which is quantum in nature. Doing that by exaggerating to a degree that constitutes lying about the potential will probably result in backlash, and we might see the bubble already deflating, and IBM revised it's road map to reflect the planned lower spending on quantum computing research. So my point is that while quantum computing will remain useless for the foreseeable future, the research that might come out if could be priceless, so I am fine with it happening, but the way it does is questionable art best and fraudulent at worse.

[@jamesroy791]

Quantum hacking could be scary from governments

[@ouranosTheos]

There's already lattice based cryptography that's quantum secure, we've been developing it for 20-40 years already

[@tanker242]

They've been saying the same thing about AI for years... Breakthrough was always around the corner.

[@skierpage]

We have AIs that can read and write strings of symbols that represent images, music, every written language, musical notation, many programming languages, protein structures, DNA sequences, ... Yes they hallucinate and have limitations, but the breakthroughs have arrived and are tremendous.

[@Tom_Quixote]

I think this channel is created by AI, from the writing to the voice.

[@garyplewa9277]

Quantum computers and Fusion Power plants, perfect together and always 30yrs away. Just keep investing money, we'll keep delivering laboratory "break throughs" to stay in the spot light.

[@yahm0n]

Quantum computing is not comparable to fusion power. We know fusion power is possible because the both the sun and hydrogen bombs exist. Quantum computing may still turn out to be definitively impossible.

[@petertan_sg]

Behind closed doors, the quantum computer is working and not working at the same time.

[@kevinbarry71]

In my opinion, quantum computing is the modern version of fusion reactors. They've been saying such things are 15 years away now for about 70 years. A wonderful way to get money from the uneducated.

[@jamesroy791]

i Think fusion reactors are worse because its ether possible or impossible your putting more energy into a reation than it outputs needs more tritium

[@FALprofessional]

The fusion comparison immediately came to mind, but not sure I'd totally agree with the skeptic "uneducated" comment. Just look at ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) demonstration reactor. I feel 15:45 is important to keep in mind. Technology takes time to develop and iterate on. Something is only impossible until it's not.

[@ouranosTheos]

I think its partly important, cause if they don't hype it up, no funding no development. Just like AI today has been funded for 20 years long.

[@xBellevueBallerZx]

Ahahahahahah because the uneducated donate their money to quantum computation labs in other countries hahahahahah

[@chesthoIe]

That 1891 guy, Otto Lilienthal, made terrible hang gliders that got him killed. His hang gilders had pitch and yaw, but no roll. That is like trying to be a bird but going outside having forgotten to put on your shoulders. The Wright Brothers made the world's first, actually controllable hang glider, and tested it, the morning before they strapped an engine to it. How science figured both of those out on the same day is mind boggling.

[@Theravadinbuto]

In the early days of computing, people worked with Analogue computers. I’m not at all clear how a quantum computer is inherently different from an analogue computer, except in the collapse event, which could easily be simulated.

[@kapilk1644]

why would you post a comment so confidently wrong?

[@fnorgen]

Analogue computers performed the same tasks as digital computers with the same level of complexity. It's just that for a while, the analogue computers were much cheaper to produce for certain tasks. No point buying thousands of electric relays to compute a task that could be accomplished just as quickly with a few precision machined cams and wheels. The big appeal of quantum computers is that they have fundamentally different complexity scaling for certain tasks which classical computers will always be bad at. In particular certain problems that can otherwise only be solved by brute force trial and error. Though at the moment, it's typically cheaper to simulate quantum computers with regular computers, than to run actual quantum computers, which makes them rather pointless for anything other than further research on quantum computers. And it looks like they will remain that way unless we find some method to make those quantum systems drastically more resilient to disturbance. And that may or may not be possible.

[@thecrackin-u8p]

​@kapilk1644 😂

[@thermitebanana]

IBM has been working on quantum computers since IBM was a leading computer company

[@leggysoft]

The problem with quantum computing is the same with photonic computing, it's really big. It's not a hoax, it's just way too niche to ever have uses outside of being used for an application-specific accelerator. Modern 4nm transistors are small and cheap per logic gate.

[@rambodude467]

Has it proven anything yet? no. scammers always selling snake oil that " can do" or " will do " magical things. this is not just a hoax . its a scam

[@chrisfisher6700]

You can tell how little a person understands about how quantum computing will benefit humanity and how much what they are describing came from popsci and media reports rather than reading the journals by timing how long it takes for them to bring up Shor’s algorithm. Bonus - if they bring up that you will never use them to play video games or some other mundane personal tasks rather than discussing the billions of ways that being able to better simulate fluids, plasmas, complex molecules, and other quantum systems (hint: everything is quantum) they are just clueless. People used to say the same thing about Cray computers and speculate that a computer would never fit in the home or a calculator would never fit in the pocket… Despite all the talk about how useless these computers are… not a single mention of DWave, the new IBM quantum computer at Cleveland Clinic, or any of the applications where simulated annealers or other quantum approaches are being used in industry.

[@a46475]

Can it add two numbers 1 + 1 ? No! It is a random number generator and you don't need billions to generate random numbers. Give it up and admit you've been had.

[@clwho4652]

We could have wireless power, we could have towers, like cell towers, transmitting power to peoples homes and cars, it is very much possible, but it is so impractical it will used. Sure quantum computing would be a boon, IF and only IF it ever becomes practical, but it will not in the foreseeable future and in the unforeseeable future it might turn out to never be practical. People have been saying practical quantum computing is years away for 40 years. At a certain point you have to stop believing people when they promise things, and quantum computing is far beyond that point.

[@hedgehog3180]

@@a46475 Jesus christ this is like saying that a computer is useless because it can't chop vegetables.

[@tullochgorum6323]

I suspect that quantum computing will end up like fusion power - it will always be "just a few years away".

[@knightsnight5929]

Or truly driverless cars.

[@mreatboom1314]

the big difference is that quantum computing is progressing fast, just recently Google made quantum error correction work It's not like fusion

[@tullochgorum6323]

​@@mreatboom1314 As the video says, there's a lot of hyping going on to keep investors happy and to justify the salaries - just as there is in fusion. But what they are doing just now is trivially small relative to real, practical computing tasks. Some more critical theorists are claiming that it will become exponentially more difficult as they try to approach a commercially useful scale - in the same way as fusion and FSD are becoming exponentially harder as they strive to become viable. The more cynical believe that it's technically not practical at all. We do sometimes see breakthroughs with hard technology, as with generative AI. But that was essentially due to GPUs becoming exponentially cheaper - a technology that's been maturing for over 1/2 a century. And impressive as it is - it's orders of magnitude less challenging than developing quantum QPUs. I knew a prof of AI when I was a kid in the '60s and they knew back then what had to be done on the software level - but they were literally trying to do it with punch-cards and rooms full of valves...

[@xBellevueBallerZx]

I know right. Those idiots haven’t even figured out fusion power yet. Bunch of scammers.

[@tullochgorum6323]

@@xBellevueBallerZx When I was a kid 60 years ago, I was fascinated by fusion power. And we were assured it was 10 to 20 years away. Over half a century later, we're still being assured it's 10 to 20 years away. Meanwhile ITER is billions over budget and decades late, and won't produce results till the 2040s. And even that is just a proof on concept - even if it works to spec, uptime will be orders of magnitude away from viability, as will cost.

[@kevinnaber790]

Just like flight and space exploration, quantum computing and fusion energy are long term projects and goals with developments that impact other areas of study. Just like how the attempts to fly brought further advances in lighter than air gases like hydrogen and helium as well as further understanding materials from bamboo to aluminum, projects like quantum computing or the Large Hadron Collider bring us improvements in cooling that have made improvements in healthcare and metallurgy.

[@kungfujoe2136]

at least it's not as expensive as AI

[@Mathguy363]

I remember in grad school there was a class on quantum artificial intelligence

[@ouranosTheos]

@@Mathguy363 yeah its call qml

[@kungfujoe2136]

@@Mathguy363 i'm only intersted if they put it on the blockcain

[@Mathguy363]

@ hope you are being sarcastic 🤣🤣🤣

[@kungfujoe2136]

@@Mathguy363 im using humor to point out the (fashion) trends in "tech"

[@jarrodwright5991]

100% agree with your main point that quantum computing is massively overhyped and that useful quantum computers are a long way off (if they're even possible at all). I think that most (maybe all) quantum startups are basically grifts based on vaporware. That said, I don't think the comparison between the development timelines of aircraft vs quantum computing makes much sense. They're completely different technologies being developed a century apart from one another. Using the history of one to make predictions about the future of the other is nonsense.