Quantum profits are pretty unobservable. As soon as you know exactly where it's at, you have no idea where it's going. And when you know where it's going, you have no idea where it's at.
To be successful, you dont need to create anything of value, so long as you convince investors of its value. So many tech start ups are simply marketing PR companies
You are yourself guilty of what it is that you are claiming others are who in this case are not. You don't have any evidence that Rigetti, DWave, Qbit, Qsi etc. were formed as marketing PR companies. I will say plainly that I know you are just letting thoughts run out your mouth or through your fingers in this case without spending more than the 8 minutes of this video which is from a platform which is obviously a PR and marketing venture. These companies as a whole are steadily marching forward and actually accomplishing and doing today in the present much more than what has been presented here which is also a representation of being what one falsely accuses others using conflation and innuendo. That giant monstrosity of a computer that speaks to the spirit world isn't made of cardboard and painted yarn slapped together in someone's kitchen with flour and water. It's funny I just remembered that I took a close look at what's happening in this field when I saw Sabine's video about the hype over quantum computers which I imagine her having slapped together in her kitchen before breakfast to get it out into the public with a sensationalized thumbnail. It's so funny I was talking to my niece about that video an hour ago when I was talking to her about how QSI understands how this freaking Universe actually works and knows how and where to look for biological solutions in reading energy in the body like reading a book, eavesdropping on the communication that is happening in cells in real time. I told my niece these people know what they are doing and they are not feeling around blindly in a desperate hope of finding something they aren't sure exists. They know it exists and they know how to find it. You can find some more details on their website and Google what independent scientists are saying but what they are doing to compliment the views from professional naysayers marketing naysaying! Thank you for your consideration. ❤️
The stock market is based on 3 things. Governments printing money, businesses making money, and criminals buying and selling to trick idiots into buying the stocks, so the criminals can then sell it all off and make money off of stupid people
Is that what this is though? It seems she’s just clinging to quantum computing skepticism and misleadingly quoting Scott Aaronson, giving the illusion he supports her general disposition towards QC. So frustrating
@@rockets4kidsquantum computing isnt about the tech? I personally made thousands of dollars on quantum computing stocks last week lol. Not separation from me…
"Well if you don't care that doubles the burden on people who do care". God damn that is an Einstein level quote because that pretty much sums up the planet right now.
Well I see his point of view as valid and reprehensible. He is what he is, and I think he is a turd. Another point, the planet earth is not at risk of failure. It is only human systems and human life itself that might disappear from earth.
I find it an incredibly arrogant quote. But I agree it is representative of a lot of the planet at these times. There's too much "you have to see things my way, or you're a bad person". I believe people should be more sceptical and think for themselves, and not trust authority blindly. That's a problem not solved by increased use of authorities to control the facts and herd the public.
It's always possible to write a paper in a way that obscures its weaknesses or makes them difficult to uncover. Authors can hide the flaws within complex explanations, and when reviewers request clarification, they can respond with even more sophisticated arguments until the reviewer eventually gives up. While everything in the paper might technically be true, strategies like this are, in my experience, a common approach in academic writing. The focus is to create a consistent "story," which kills the clarity and transparency the academic system rarely rewards.
Then again, in an atmosphere of constant bullshitting by omission people learn to look for the stuff that is not said rather sooner than later. It's not like investors are total idiots. They probably have their own scientific counsel that they consult before making expensive decisions.
Yep. If you want a paper that only shows "the truth", then it should be pure equations and experimental results (all of them, including the mistakes and false starts, etc), with no discussion or writeup at all. Which would obviously be a pretty bad way to conduct science. Writing a paper involves interpretation and a perspective, and identifying some kind of story to tell. And it occurs within a context. To ignore all of that is painfully naive, showing that brilliance in science doesn't mean you can't be a real ignoramus in other areas; or possibly someone getting some kickbacks from quantum computing companies (I'm not accusing this particular researcher of such, I know nothing about him, I'm making a more general point).
I'm reminded of a few episodes of Penn&Teller's FoolUs, where a contestant will present such a Gordian knot of technical complexity, and I suspect _deliberately,_ that the unstated magic principle of elegance is lost. And when it happens, Penn's usually ebullient tone changes to a sort of (if not in so many words) "Well I guess you fooled us, here's your trophy, thank you, goodbye..."
Hawking would insert the number Infinity as if that didn't matter as routine i.e this is the same as admitting an equation is BS / starting again from an abstraction in the cosmos. When i was bored over xmas i browsed a large number of papers. All of them were dependent of its readers goodwill // or inability to understand them in order for them to seem sensible.
True and that is why fiction writers and journalists make a living. What they produce holds the attention of the audience. There is a large entertainment industry, the way science is done, and has been popularized had made it part of entertainment. Most of my exposure to science is through Documentaries.
I asked my Fidelity advisor why all my quantum investments lose money. He said that at any moment in time my initial investment is worth what I invested, more than I invested and less than I invested at the same time. Once I check for the actual value some wave function collapse thing happens and my values are always less than I invested. Weird.
First. The juxtaposition of the two hype triggers "quantum" and "AI" has multiplied their effects. Now if physicists can just work "dark matter" into this, there will be more papers than atoms in the universe.
as a day trader, I can tell you it has nothing to do with the companies or the technology. It certainly has nothing to do with the fight between these scholars. It's just a trading theme - semiconductors cooled off, AI cooled off, it was after earnings season so not much was going on. Traders were looking for something to pump and this was it. If you look at the price patterns, it's similar to biotech and other "pump and dump" trades. It's just a trading vehicle - don't blame the researchers. Tech is hot for trading, nothing more.
Exactly…this is how capitalism works: the most well intentioned looses and pay to the more informed fewer, and nobody can blame to anybody (aka ‘freedom’)
What the hell can a day trader tell us about tech , AI, science , advances in medical technology , scholars , philosophy ? Nothing . They can't and don't contribute anything to society so most good, decent , people should just ignore them. All they are interesed in is profit , money , themselves, as usual .
@@gregorygant4242 I answered her question why these stocks are run up which is the premise of the video. I’m also a 25 year tech veteran and college professor so I can answer a lot of questions. Because people are people, not labels.
but what i don't understand is that ai didn't cool off! is just started! there are millions of applications just coming out in every field! the more i read investors news the more i think is all bullshit and I'm terrified that our economy is in the hand of ignorant people
As a former member of staff at MIT is saddens me so much to hear someone like Farhi with that attitude. If he is interested, at this point, in anything other than lining his pockets, he needs to explain what it is.
Even if his paper is “right,” people will be less inclined to trust it if the field is overrun by less scrupulous persons. Scientific integrity comes from (1) acting with integrity, and (2) being critical where integrity is lacking.
@@ItsEverythingElse Who decides which paper is correct? How would the general public know it’s correct? Would they perform their own study? When science becomes associated with a lack of integrity, it is perfectly reasonable to simply reject the word of scientists until you can find a different group that surrounds itself with integrity to cling to. Every person who agrees with a paper (or anything else) is pressing the “I believe button” to some extent. Buffett said something like: “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.”
I work in materials science and sometimes Im reading papers where it is impossible to say if the work was experimental or theoretical because the authors know if they state clearly that it was "only" theoretical, the paper will be published only in an IF3 insteat of IF10 journal.
Exactly this: the incentives are for deception, so of course some researchers are going to be deceptive. The guy saying "I don't care" is really saying "it would cost me too much money and prestige".
As a researcher in the field of quantum computing, this topic feels particularly close to home, especially since I study the performance of quantum computers and the (so far absent) quantum advantage. To be fair, my impression within my niche field is that everyone recognizes the gap between current hardware and the potential for quantum utility. Farhi is a well-known figure in the field of quantum computing, but he is indeed focused on Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing (FTQC), which, as you mentioned, remains a distant prospect. What surprises me is the emphasis on FTQC in national and transnational initiatives (e.g., Horizon programs). In my view, it's crucial to find practical utility for quantum computers well before FTQC becomes a reality, as that may still be decades away. My hope-and my intuition, though I could be wrong, as science is about evidence, not intuition-is that we should focus on short- to mid-term achievable quantum computers and quantum processing units (QPUs). We need to find ways to derive useful computational outcomes from these existing technologies until there's a clear roadmap indicating that FTQC might be achievable within five years or so.
FTCQ needs to remain fully reversible parallel computing as long as it is 100% fault tolerant. The blockchain 50% byzantine fault tolerance is remarkable semi-quantum achievement in that respect. Full reversibility is not possible in bottom-up construction, but very possible in top-down construction. The worst thing you can do is to throw away any hope of reversibility by trying to do QC via most irreversible statistical mechanics. Science of pure mathematics is about BOTH constructive evidence AND intuition of the coherent truth value of intuitive receiving of ontologically coherent mathematics. Both are necessary, take only either aspect instead of both, and you stop doing science.
What’s sane? Shes saying physicists should be in the business of not just writing correct papers, but pre-debunking hype that could be drawn from their correct science just to satisfy “noooooo hype bad!!!” crowd.
The market stopped being rational decades ago, when high frequency trading became a thing. Since then hype increases shareholder value much quicker and easier than a legitimately bright future for the company.
What does the scientific integrity have to do with the stock market? His job is to write a scientific paper, not worry about how people will use his paper to sell air.
@@user-ov5nd1fb7sit's a very neoliberal POV to say an individual being funded by the public should have no regard for the perception of the technology they're working on m, tech which may have a profound impact on a society's development and security.
Then they should put a disclaimer. The contents of this paper should not be misconstrued to make speculations outside of the scope of this paper, such as investments, economic trends, etc. Or perhaps journal publishers should put this disclaimer about all of their articles. I do think that scientists who anticipate misinterpretations and are proactive at preventing people from harm are providing more value to the public than scientists who don't. But to make the scientist liable for mistakes that other people make is not fair. Companies encounter this problem all the time. They make a product and people use it in ways it is not intended. Companies should not be liable for it, but they should at least publish warnings and safety precautions.
@@cryora Ideally it would be implicitly true about any source of information, not just academic papers, that it should not be misconstrued, but that does not mean that people won’t do it anyway for their own gain. It’s not immediately the fault of the provider of the information if that happens.
The field IS rapidly progressing. The question is which applications are useful and that's what Scott Aaronson was talking about when he said "overhype." But he obviously would agree (and has said so many times) that there has been an amazing amount of progress.
Quantum computing is in a superposition right now. All companies are loosing money and performing really well at the same time. Maybe I should write a paper about predicting tachion wave oscillations in quantum holograms using AI.
You should, it would be interesting to see if anyone refutes it because most of this stuff is beyond 95% of the world population and is all taken on faith. Having faith in mankind to always be truthful is a losing proposition. As a group we even seem to like liars especially if they say things we like. You will have to watch out for Sabine though.
Good new visual palette for the New Year. Your dark energy post and this one reflect your continued attention to and reflection on both frontiers. Thank you.
Another problem on how companies are reading the increasing amount of publications about quantum computing is that they lack a fundamental understanding of how science works nowadays. Most of us, scientists, are publishing in very specific journals for a very selected type of knowledge field (like for example: chemistry-> quantum chemistry-> electrochemistry->with classical or quantum computers). So, when we publish we are writing for an audience that has a similar knowledge than we have, otherwise they won’t understand anything at all of what they are reading. And of course we don’t need to emphasize the clear and obvious thing that so far there isn’t any quantum advantage (or supremacy or even utility) just exploratory attempts, mostly using simulators in classical computers (mainly just laptops). People reading and understanding these publications will know this obvious thing just by reading the methods used to produce the data. Of course most of the people talking about quantum computing don’t know any of this because this is the work mainly done by students and postdocs.
Look, it is true peer-review is focused on a specific segment of specialists, and this has always been true. However, the scientific community in the past tried to discuss, send clarifications, explanations and so to anybody which requested them, and generally avoided making big claims unless the content was truthfully big. Basically, it is about making yourself clear about your communication with others. The language you choose to use and the follow-up you decide to make of it are totally partly your responsibility and need to assume and behave as such. Intentionally misleading (even when remaining technically correct) to then gather stock investors is anything but good ethics. You can say the same thing without the need to be misleading about it. I know the current economic system incentives for attitudes like this, and I understand everyone needs to make a living, but one thing is following the system the minimum possible to live decently, and another is going full speed to be the best on a system where the best is being the worst ethical possible.
A big problem i see in papers is that to get access to a device, often researchers have to partner with a company. To make that company happy, you have to be generally positive about the industry in your writeup. Lots of "likely near term use case" and "promising field of research" type sentiment. On top of that the journals want the hype too. I had some trouble publishing a paper for which I only used a simulator because I thought the pages of math explaining the method should have been more than enough without actually running any examples of any kind. As soon as we included running something on a QC the critiques went away, even though it added nothing scientifically.
Man when investing started to bleed into science I knew things were messed... Only in USA when the big thing is money beyond anything and the act to sell matters more than the contribution added to society.
Not just in USA. The Ponzi number games that current financial feodalism (NOT capitalism!) plays teaches people to play mainly pump and dump games as sub-ponzies of ponzi financial system, pretending that they are "innovation" while they are just plain fraud. And while players know they are fraud, they play the "market psychology" instead of any genuine innovation of long term benefits.
Sabine, I don’t think it is fair or accurate to say that “not much is happening” in the quantum computing field. There is a big gap between “there is not much happening” and the kind of hype that you rightfully critique. The truth is probably somewhere in between these two extremes.
She literally purposely or indirectly affected sentiment on it, don't listen to it, costed some who did, one has to understand how news are sold today, and I think she is also mad for not investing in it (very likely she did and wanted to keep the price lower to keep buying).
I knew this day would come! When I actually know more about the subject than Sabine 😂 In fairness, this has nothing to do with quantum computing per se, but about the insanity that currently poses as capital markets. There is a ton of surplus liquidity sloshing around in a game of musical chairs at the moment. Every so often it sloshes around trying to find a narrative to hype with the help of twitter etc. It could be the latest zero-intrinic-value crypto, or a semi real business with a whiff of a story. These stocks are just beneficiaries of people hyping the Google story, and looking for the next Palantir or whatever. Unless the story can be maintained, or perpetuated with new announcements that help to maintain the hype, or the companies do actually start to show real progress, the liquidity will desert these companies as quick as it entered.
In September of last year, news came out that someone managed to run ‘Doom’ (a video game) on a quantum computer. Forget the fact that it was a stripped down wireframe version of part of a level of the original ‘Doom’ from the early 1990’s running at ~15 fps, on a virtual quantum computer simulation with MANY times the number of Q-bits than what anyone even has on their drawing boards for development yet.
Extremely educated does not mean that you are better person , ethically or morally it can make you the opposite , the person's character plays the major role in that.
Why? He publishes papers for scientists in scientific journals. Not opion pieces in the NYT that everyone needs to buy quantum shares now. How is he responsible that the general public, investors, the companies themselves and science journalists misunderstand or misrepresent his findings? He is a scientist who writes for scientists in his domain, not NDT.
I bought some quantum stocks earlier in the year, flipped them for profit, then watched them continue to soar WAY past where I thought their value were. Nice to see my skeptical nature in their negative revenue was warranted
Markets always rush in madly after the 'next big thing', and then crash when it doesn't pan out or the market's too bloated to maintain the boom. Remember the 'Dot Com Crash'? Everybody invested a gazillion dollars into anyone with a website... even when there was no product or business model whatsoever.
Yeah he directly contradicts this channel regularly. Hilarious she’s citing him to give the illusion he supports her general disposition on this subject
@@coreyleander7911 Here is the latest comment from Scott Aaronsons blog Shtetl-Optimized about this very video: Update: Here’s Sabine Hossenfelder’s take. I don’t think she and I disagree about any of the actual facts; she just decided to frame things much more negatively. Ironically, I guess 20 years of covering hyped, dishonestly-presented non-milestones in quantum computing has inclined me to be pretty positive when a group puts in this much work, demonstrates a real milestone, and talks about it without obvious falsehoods!
@@cryora To me it very clearly states the situation: "if you don't care about it, that makes things more difficult for other people". I don't think that's passive aggressive, and from the excerpt in the video the other guy was in need of a little shake-up.
@@cryora yes, I just don't think a burn is either necessarily passive aggressive or always undue. In this case I think the burn has a direct, appropriately stinging message. But of course this is all personal.
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p Well he's indirectly blaming him for the problems of other people. He could have instead stopped and considered his point of view and thought about how he could make his point without sounding like his is trying to pass blame. He has a point, but other people are still entitled to their thoughts.
Stock price changes in these types of companies are completely psychological. They have no basis in fundamental analysis, so have no way to analyze them to any value. People "bet" on which stock like this will win and therefore gain them huge amounts of money. Of course, most of the people betting here have no idea how the technology and market will turn out.
Quantum computing is just the latest "next greatest thing" in a long line of NGTs. Entrepreneurial, cutting edge, technology companies and their academic partners, collaborators, founders, fellow coconspirators have played this game for decades. As my scumbag attorney partner told me in my own start-up technology company, "We don't have to be technologically successful, we just need to be able to develop a good enough story to be acquired". There is an aspect of a Ponzi scheme in every new technology start-up, even the most ethical and authentic. Sabine rightly points out that without ethical disclosure of both the promise and limitation of a new technology scientists are promoting investment theses that often punish naive investors.
Well that implies getting acquired is easier to achieve than being technologically successful, which is not always true. I would think it is harder to get acquired without being technologically successful, compared to getting technologically successful (or at least demonstrating some real promise) and then acquired. Even if you do manage to do it, it could end up becoming a scandal like Theranos, and you pay for it later on.
Trust scientists *exactly* as much as you would trust anyone off the street. Because they ARE anyone off the street, just trying to make money, some honestly, and some not honestly. They are not morally or ethically better than anyone else in any way.
@@cherubin7th Yep, which is why "trust the science" is exactly the opposite of science. Science is never about trust, science is about verifiability. Question science, and especially question scientists. The best way to tell if science is legit is whether questioning is welcomed. Legit science and scientists love to be questioned, because they can go into the details. Propaganda hates to be questioned, because the "expert" might be exposed for the fraud they are.
Maybe but you can't equate scientists with Wall Street traders , totally different occupations one just for profit the other for science but with many bad apples.
@@cherubin7th There's a relatively greater incentive to produce completely novel research than to reproduce already published research, in terms of funding and publish-ability. Sometimes, research groups will avoid trying to reproduce research out of fear that they obtain different and contradictory results - because now you have a problem, either you are wrong, or the other research group is wrong. Research groups aren't going to want to openly admit they've erred and put their careers on the line for the greater good of science. Nor would they be thrilled about the idea of challenging another research group's findings thereby inviting more criticism and scrutiny in their own work, which also puts their careers at risk. As much as you want and expect it to be honorable, it can be a dirty business. No different from going to court over a dispute, and both parties pleading themselves innocent and the other guilty, when it can only be one or the other. The taxpayers, donors, students, and everyone who has invested in the scientific institutions deserve better.
To be honest, research papers in medicine, the same way, are covering very context based areas usually (multifactorial effects in bodily biochemistry aside, there is often hidden conditions, variables that can be tucked away). Creating even more illusions for ones that don't see the whole picture.
He isn't an investor, doesn't talk to investors and doesn't even encourage investors to use his work. That said, stocks go up and down without any connection to science, this "responsibility" can't even be applied.
@@traumflughe represents a public education institution funded by the taxpayer, he should feel a degree of responsibility in the direction of development of frontier technology.
It makes my blood boil that you’re suggesting Farhi should be pre-debunking what *others* might incorrectly conclude from his correct science - all to scratch the insane “nooo hype and positivity are bad!” itch you Sabine partisans have
@@triton62674and what is that responsibility? You’re saying he should be actively pre-debunking what people might incorrectly conclude from his correct work? It’s remarkable how desperate you folks are to scratch that “noooo hype is bad even when it’s right!” itch.
@@triton62674 Yes, definitely. An academic scientist’s job is to increase the world’s net understanding of their subject. That is what they are paid for. The topic of discussion is misunderstandings so significant that they can cause massive stock bubbles. I don’t know what exactly the right response is, but I know it is not to shout “I don’t care!” and shut down discussions by people who do.
Regarding the "study in mice" comparison: there's a big part of the fitness supplements industry that takes papers what see a slight effect in mice and then sell supplements claiming the same effects for humans. So even if the author has big bold letters with these caveats, people don't care, they want quick and simple answers. And with the "publish or perish" environment we see in current academia, I don't blame people for not going against the grain. I don't like it, but I don't think I'd be able to do it differently.
I agree with the scientist that said he doesn't care. His job isn't to anticipate what people will think of his research, nor to police crazy pitches to investors. That's the job of journalists and investors. They have to do due diligence.
I have some sympathy with the "I don't care as long as it's correct" attitude. It's very hard to guess all the ways that non-experts might misunderstand your paper, and it's hard enough to get a paper published without adding self-imposed difficulties (like summarising it for laymen) that other competing papers have no obligation to follow. The only way to solve this is for journals (about hot topics like cancer cures & quantum computing) to require that all papers include summaries for laymen - and if some people still misunderstand/mis-sell it after that, then tough luck. Investors really should hire experts in the field to interpret papers & summarise progress, if they want to decide if some highly technical field is making progress & likely to produce profits in the short-medium term - but of course they won't usually do that, since they are generally investing other people's money (aka pension money).
It seems people only care about laymen being able to understand science when those laymen are moneyed interests. Then again, if making science accessible for moneyed interests helps make it accessible for science-curious laymen, then that's good I suppose.
All of what you say is "spot on" but you might feature the stock price escalation due to excess cash sitting on the sidelines and jumping in on the hype. I had a real laugh when @6:52 the 'stock' photo Team SH selected shows two workers with the one viewing the microscope wearing safety glasses while the other titrating a liquid not so equipped.
It's the age of The Grift. "Everyone else is doing quantum papers, eff it, I'll take anyone's money, my career is almost over, time to max out my estate.". Or, "I've been grifting on string theory et al for forty years, not because it was proven, but because it was popular. I and others have made our careers out of, well, nothing, wasting billions. Now that I'm very old, I'll quickly denounce string theory and slam the door. My legacy is safe! Isn't grifting, err, physics great?" The rot of The Grift via 'not caring' has gotten all the way through the universities.
This video shows two truths that people find difficult to believe: 1) Science doesn't work the way people think it does. 2) Financial markets don’t work the way people think they do.
Quantum Computing stocks collapsing has been projected since the second quarter of 2024. I also invested wrongly, but Vivian's professionalism is high on the stock market. Today, I'm glad I didn't fall victim to the dip.
Lots of people have been talking about Vivian R Campbell, i guess have now i will decide to follow the right suit in following a solid step of a financial advisor and Quantum ran me in dip of $98,000 today.
I just looked her up on Google and I am impressed by her track record after viewing her official website. This is what I needed! I sent an email and await her response. Thanks for sharing.
As is customary, the equities are merely market ballooning and will soon require another market to do so. They are the heads of the financial balloon so better i get it right with my portfolio now.
I only very recently became interested enough in quantum computers to start paying attention and trying to actually figure out how the actually work. This research led me pretty quickly to Scott Aaronson, and I have been so impressed with him. Brilliant but grounded, full of curiosity and integrity. Such a true scientist!
Because quantum jailbroke science with its rigorous requirements of evidence. John Clauser provided no raw data, and still won the Nobel prize. For what exactly? Fiction?
@ lmao yeah man that’s what all of quantum computing is based on. It’s an experimental realization of quantum entanglement, for decades now. Insane how many people there are like you out there that completely disregard science in general because you don’t understand it.
Edward Farhi published a paper in 2019 which says "The _promise_ of quantum computers is that certain computational tasks might be executed exponentially faster on a quantum processor than on a classical processor... our benchmarks currently indicate that the equivalent task for a state-of-the-art classical supercomputer would take approximately 10,000 years". This is hype. The average reader would get the impression that quantum computers will be a million times faster than 'classical'' supercomputers. If this was true then they would certainly be worth investing in. But IBM showed that the same task could be performed on a 'classical' system in 2.5 days _worst case_ with far greater fidelity.
Quantum computing is the one place where that meme "instead of buying an expensive computer why don't we just emulate an expensive computer on a cheap computer?" is true
The problem is, to try to finance "basic (research) science" by means of private investors... In a ideal world (what is this?) should be the state (the government) of the countries, who put the money for these researches and developments, I mean, to finance the "investigacion basica" , which has no expectation (no security) to find a practical application in the near future. For example, can You imagine Albert Einstein looking for sponsors and investors to finance his research time (1907-1915) in Gravitation (General Relativity Theory) ? It took him approximately 10 years of work (and during this time without being able to present a valid (useful) result). And the risk: is indeed, that after many years of research work... You finally have ... still "empty hands" (no results).
Other big issue is about the estimation of resources necessary to solve realistic problems (e.g. in material science, medicine, etc). As a rule of thumb, the size of future quantum computers is estimated mainly based on the error correction problem. I see as a very good thing that, apparently, physicists, informatics, engineers, and some mathematicians have started to work together on producing algorithms for these real life applications on the quantum computers. Unfortunately, the integration with chemists, biologists, and other experts from similar fields is not progressing as fast as necessary for the development of these applications. And as a consequence, all the estimations on the future quantum computers resources underestimate the size of a challenge that these problems represent.
Most guys who pull theorems out of arbitrary ex falso "axioms" don't realize that THAT is the real problem, because for any proposition you want to make, you can beg the question and make up a set of "axioms" that satisfies your need, and then bypass Gödel etc. undecidability results by wrong playing IF-THEN language game in the form "Supposing the "axioms" are not inconsistent...". Such axiomatics are incoherent and inconsistent from the get go, because in mathematics and logic we are only allowed to deduce theorems from First Principles that are inherently true. That is the real meaning of mathematical induction, deduction is valid only when it is induces from mathematically true First Principles in top-down direction.
Interesting vid. Thanks. I don’t think it’s necessarily quantum computers alone so much as it will be AI AND quantum computing together. It might take AI (maybe even ASI) to effectively use quantum computers in the near future (within five years?) and to do the engineering to go from 105 cubits to 1M… 🤔
It seems to me that quantum computers are similar to pet rocks- they got very expensive very fast, but in the end all they can do is hold a stack of paper in place and maybe be thrown at a bottle.
This reminds me of a song my late Father taught me as a child: "Off we go, into the Territory, Filter Queen, , always a sale...So jump, to sign, the dotted line , 'cause nothing can stop a Filter Queen". (Sung to the tune of the Air Force Hymn.)
I just love how clearly defensive that little rant was: “I dont CARE what people do with my papers, only that they’re correct. I don’t CARE…” He got called out on being an amoral asshole in real time and displayed a complete lack of emotional intelligence about it. 🤣🤣
I nearly bought a guitar in two-tone lavender once. Great color choice for your features. You will undoubtedly become the equivalent of Cramer, featured on German television in the coming year. I think the hype is that, once quantum computing "works", whatever that practical threshold really is, people expect to be able to hack crypto-anything and thieve currency from blockchains or mine currency without needing the power of a small city to find a suitable hash. Whatever the motivation i.e. greed, i.e. wealth without work, or curiosity, my feed has lately been covered with quantum teleportation over the internet. Gosh, "quantum" and "internet" and "teleportation", all in one sentence? Where do I throw my money? Wait, I'm in a super-position of both poor AND destitute, and have no money to throw. Hmmm. Rant on you crazy diamond!
I wonder how this video can be compared with Sabine's video about freedom of speech in academia. In that video researchers were afraid to publish a paper because of the consequences of the results.
You are absolutely wrong here 7:26 . No one hired him to apply his research to a business idea or a cure for cancer. Therefore, he has no obligation, not even moral obligation to predict how people may abuse his scientific research papers. That onus is on them! No matter how furious you are with how people abuse scientific papers. The scientist bears no burden whatsoever for this. If someone cannot understand the research they should hire a scientist to interpret or apply it for them.
It is the burden of the speaker to express his/her ideas in a manner that lends itself to the understanding of the listener. Knowingly occluding the actual meaning by is a moral failing
I agree to extent that he may not know how his work is being used. This part is not really clear in this video although it is implied that he knows his work is being misused or interpretered incorrectly.
@ he will also use this misconception in getting grants filing patents and supporting his future work. Let’s see how realistic his rhetoric is at the next university fund raiser
@ he talks to organizations and corporations that fund his research. He files both private and government grant requests. He uses resources of universities and or private equity. He doesn’t just sit in his room and write papers that are not read. His summaries are read and if he fills them w jargon and hides the ball, then he is like every other snake oil salesman
no, no you see now they're inventing new ways to ruin everything that's already been built WHILE also making everyone's gramd a nazi and everyone mom an anti-vaxxer don't you dare question the wonder things Big Tech has invented
This is an excellent video which serves to illustrate what most of your viewers know already, there is so much hype about quantum computing. Scientists need to be truthful about what they write in their research papers and thus not omit pertinent details.
Quantum computing creates quatum profits. They collapse the moment you try to observe them. :-)
lol
HAHAHAHAHA
Quantum profits are pretty unobservable. As soon as you know exactly where it's at, you have no idea where it's going. And when you know where it's going, you have no idea where it's at.
Schrödinger's profits. Love it.
The collapse of the $-function.
To be successful, you dont need to create anything of value, so long as you convince investors of its value. So many tech start ups are simply marketing PR companies
Sad but true.
SpaceX, Hyperloop, Neuralink in a nutshell
Sounds like Cryptocurrency
@@AnneRavenStar Full Self-Driving next year, for sure.
You are yourself guilty of what it is that you are claiming others are who in this case are not. You don't have any evidence that Rigetti, DWave, Qbit, Qsi etc. were formed as marketing PR companies. I will say plainly that I know you are just letting thoughts run out your mouth or through your fingers in this case without spending more than the 8 minutes of this video which is from a platform which is obviously a PR and marketing venture. These companies as a whole are steadily marching forward and actually accomplishing and doing today in the present much more than what has been presented here which is also a representation of being what one falsely accuses others using conflation and innuendo. That giant monstrosity of a computer that speaks to the spirit world isn't made of cardboard and painted yarn slapped together in someone's kitchen with flour and water. It's funny I just remembered that I took a close look at what's happening in this field when I saw Sabine's video about the hype over quantum computers which I imagine her having slapped together in her kitchen before breakfast to get it out into the public with a sensationalized thumbnail. It's so funny I was talking to my niece about that video an hour ago when I was talking to her about how QSI understands how this freaking Universe actually works and knows how and where to look for biological solutions in reading energy in the body like reading a book, eavesdropping on the communication that is happening in cells in real time. I told my niece these people know what they are doing and they are not feeling around blindly in a desperate hope of finding something they aren't sure exists. They know it exists and they know how to find it. You can find some more details on their website and Google what independent scientists are saying but what they are doing to compliment the views from professional naysayers marketing naysaying! Thank you for your consideration. ❤️
If there is a observable parallel universe, it´s the one of stock markets.
Many Americans live in one or more of them
Lots of dumb people playing a game and thinking it’s what value is
The stock market is based on 3 things. Governments printing money, businesses making money, and criminals buying and selling to trick idiots into buying the stocks, so the criminals can then sell it all off and make money off of stupid people
I'm betting on the universe where Schrodinger's cat comes out alive.
Great comment!
what an epical line from Scott: "if some people don't feel the burden, then it doubles the burden that other people have..." 🥰
Thank you for your no BS coverage.
It's never been about the tech, it's always been about separating fools from their money.
@@rockets4kids Spot on!
Is that what this is though? It seems she’s just clinging to quantum computing skepticism and misleadingly quoting Scott Aaronson, giving the illusion he supports her general disposition towards QC. So frustrating
@@rockets4kidsquantum computing isnt about the tech? I personally made thousands of dollars on quantum computing stocks last week lol. Not separation from me…
you want proper "no bs coverage"? its a most expensive RNG ever, and itll never be anything more... NEVER
"Well if you don't care that doubles the burden on people who do care". God damn that is an Einstein level quote because that pretty much sums up the planet right now.
Added to the fact that that counter-point came instantly in conversation in real time.
Well I see his point of view as valid and reprehensible. He is what he is, and I think he is a turd.
Another point, the planet earth is not at risk of failure. It is only human systems and human life itself that might disappear from earth.
Unfortunately it boils down to the same tribalist nonsense as "if you're not with us, you're against us."
What if nobody cares?
I find it an incredibly arrogant quote. But I agree it is representative of a lot of the planet at these times. There's too much "you have to see things my way, or you're a bad person".
I believe people should be more sceptical and think for themselves, and not trust authority blindly. That's a problem not solved by increased use of authorities to control the facts and herd the public.
It's always possible to write a paper in a way that obscures its weaknesses or makes them difficult to uncover. Authors can hide the flaws within complex explanations, and when reviewers request clarification, they can respond with even more sophisticated arguments until the reviewer eventually gives up. While everything in the paper might technically be true, strategies like this are, in my experience, a common approach in academic writing. The focus is to create a consistent "story," which kills the clarity and transparency the academic system rarely rewards.
Then again, in an atmosphere of constant bullshitting by omission people learn to look for the stuff that is not said rather sooner than later. It's not like investors are total idiots. They probably have their own scientific counsel that they consult before making expensive decisions.
Yep. If you want a paper that only shows "the truth", then it should be pure equations and experimental results (all of them, including the mistakes and false starts, etc), with no discussion or writeup at all. Which would obviously be a pretty bad way to conduct science. Writing a paper involves interpretation and a perspective, and identifying some kind of story to tell. And it occurs within a context. To ignore all of that is painfully naive, showing that brilliance in science doesn't mean you can't be a real ignoramus in other areas; or possibly someone getting some kickbacks from quantum computing companies (I'm not accusing this particular researcher of such, I know nothing about him, I'm making a more general point).
I'm reminded of a few episodes of Penn&Teller's FoolUs, where a contestant will present such a Gordian knot of technical complexity, and I suspect _deliberately,_ that the unstated magic principle of elegance is lost. And when it happens, Penn's usually ebullient tone changes to a sort of (if not in so many words) "Well I guess you fooled us, here's your trophy, thank you, goodbye..."
Hawking would insert the number Infinity as if that didn't matter as routine i.e this is the same as admitting an equation is BS / starting again from an abstraction in the cosmos. When i was bored over xmas i browsed a large number of papers. All of them were dependent of its readers goodwill // or inability to understand them in order for them to seem sensible.
True and that is why fiction writers and journalists make a living. What they produce holds the attention of the audience. There is a large entertainment industry, the way science is done, and has been popularized had made it part of entertainment. Most of my exposure to science is through Documentaries.
I asked my Fidelity advisor why all my quantum investments lose money. He said that at any moment in time my initial investment is worth what I invested, more than I invested and less than I invested at the same time. Once I check for the actual value some wave function collapse thing happens and my values are always less than I invested. Weird.
You simply are in the wrong parallel universe.
@@fredred8298 Time to teleport your portfolio to Scwab... teleportfolio is now a new quantum word!
First.
The juxtaposition of the two hype triggers "quantum" and "AI" has multiplied their effects. Now if physicists can just work "dark matter" into this, there will be more papers than atoms in the universe.
Lol
remove that error correction and call it dark data or something...
@@texasranger24 don't give them ideas...
I predict cold fusion from the 80s will be resurrected!
About to launch my Quantum Artificial Dark Fusion business. Looking for a financial backer😂
as a day trader, I can tell you it has nothing to do with the companies or the technology. It certainly has nothing to do with the fight between these scholars. It's just a trading theme - semiconductors cooled off, AI cooled off, it was after earnings season so not much was going on. Traders were looking for something to pump and this was it. If you look at the price patterns, it's similar to biotech and other "pump and dump" trades. It's just a trading vehicle - don't blame the researchers. Tech is hot for trading, nothing more.
Exactly…this is how capitalism works: the most well intentioned looses and pay to the more informed fewer, and nobody can blame to anybody (aka ‘freedom’)
What the hell can a day trader tell us about tech , AI, science , advances in medical technology , scholars , philosophy ?
Nothing .
They can't and don't contribute anything to society so most good, decent , people should just ignore them.
All they are interesed in is profit , money , themselves, as usual .
@@gregorygant4242 I answered her question why these stocks are run up which is the premise of the video. I’m also a 25 year tech veteran and college professor so I can answer a lot of questions. Because people are people, not labels.
People are people is a label though..
but what i don't understand is that ai didn't cool off! is just started! there are millions of applications just coming out in every field! the more i read investors news the more i think is all bullshit and I'm terrified that our economy is in the hand of ignorant people
As a former member of staff at MIT is saddens me so much to hear someone like Farhi with that attitude. If he is interested, at this point, in anything other than lining his pockets, he needs to explain what it is.
Even if his paper is “right,” people will be less inclined to trust it if the field is overrun by less scrupulous persons. Scientific integrity comes from (1) acting with integrity, and (2) being critical where integrity is lacking.
Might also be a belief that anyone who gets fooled deserves to be, and that he makes research primarily for those who can fully understand it.
@@PermanentExile If people don't trust a correct paper then we have bigger problems.
@@ItsEverythingElse Who decides which paper is correct? How would the general public know it’s correct? Would they perform their own study? When science becomes associated with a lack of integrity, it is perfectly reasonable to simply reject the word of scientists until you can find a different group that surrounds itself with integrity to cling to. Every person who agrees with a paper (or anything else) is pressing the “I believe button” to some extent. Buffett said something like: “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.”
He's obviously interested in research and being correct.
Do you have any grounds for your accusations?
If i had to guess i would say our friend from MIT has alternative financial incentives for his position
In which case he would be lying when he says he doesn't care; I'd say he probably cares quite a bit about any financial incentives.
Yep. Just another money loving scam artist interested in his bank account. The lake of fire has space for the unrepentant.
I work in materials science and sometimes Im reading papers where it is impossible to say if the work was experimental or theoretical because the authors know if they state clearly that it was "only" theoretical, the paper will be published only in an IF3 insteat of IF10 journal.
There it is.
Exactly this: the incentives are for deception, so of course some researchers are going to be deceptive. The guy saying "I don't care" is really saying "it would cost me too much money and prestige".
As a researcher in the field of quantum computing, this topic feels particularly close to home, especially since I study the performance of quantum computers and the (so far absent) quantum advantage. To be fair, my impression within my niche field is that everyone recognizes the gap between current hardware and the potential for quantum utility. Farhi is a well-known figure in the field of quantum computing, but he is indeed focused on Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing (FTQC), which, as you mentioned, remains a distant prospect.
What surprises me is the emphasis on FTQC in national and transnational initiatives (e.g., Horizon programs). In my view, it's crucial to find practical utility for quantum computers well before FTQC becomes a reality, as that may still be decades away. My hope-and my intuition, though I could be wrong, as science is about evidence, not intuition-is that we should focus on short- to mid-term achievable quantum computers and quantum processing units (QPUs). We need to find ways to derive useful computational outcomes from these existing technologies until there's a clear roadmap indicating that FTQC might be achievable within five years or so.
FTCQ needs to remain fully reversible parallel computing as long as it is 100% fault tolerant. The blockchain 50% byzantine fault tolerance is remarkable semi-quantum achievement in that respect. Full reversibility is not possible in bottom-up construction, but very possible in top-down construction. The worst thing you can do is to throw away any hope of reversibility by trying to do QC via most irreversible statistical mechanics.
Science of pure mathematics is about BOTH constructive evidence AND intuition of the coherent truth value of intuitive receiving of ontologically coherent mathematics. Both are necessary, take only either aspect instead of both, and you stop doing science.
Somebody sane on the internet. Thanks Sabine!
She is as blind as a bat re the globull warming panic-manufacturing industry (i.e. climate-change "science")
What’s sane? Shes saying physicists should be in the business of not just writing correct papers, but pre-debunking hype that could be drawn from their correct science just to satisfy “noooooo hype bad!!!” crowd.
The market stopped being rational decades ago, when high frequency trading became a thing. Since then hype increases shareholder value much quicker and easier than a legitimately bright future for the company.
“Fake it ‘til you make it” - a mantra for our new age of enlightenment. 🤣
"The only thing I care aout is that my papers are correct" Yeah I think you are right :)
I thought it was "move fast and break things"? Perhaps I'm misremembering this and confusing it with the typical day of a 2 year old.
It's rather steal while you can 🙂
That's how mostly US operates lol - on all fronts, financial, military worldwide etc lol
That's been a saying for decades.
Sabine perfectly identifies the nature of parallel worlds. The guy who cares about scientific integrity vs the guy who does not.
What does the scientific integrity have to do with the stock market?
His job is to write a scientific paper, not worry about how people will use his paper to sell air.
@@user-ov5nd1fb7s Therein lies the problem.
@@user-ov5nd1fb7sit's a very neoliberal POV to say an individual being funded by the public should have no regard for the perception of the technology they're working on m, tech which may have a profound impact on a society's development and security.
Then they should put a disclaimer. The contents of this paper should not be misconstrued to make speculations outside of the scope of this paper, such as investments, economic trends, etc. Or perhaps journal publishers should put this disclaimer about all of their articles. I do think that scientists who anticipate misinterpretations and are proactive at preventing people from harm are providing more value to the public than scientists who don't. But to make the scientist liable for mistakes that other people make is not fair.
Companies encounter this problem all the time. They make a product and people use it in ways it is not intended. Companies should not be liable for it, but they should at least publish warnings and safety precautions.
@@cryora Ideally it would be implicitly true about any source of information, not just academic papers, that it should not be misconstrued, but that does not mean that people won’t do it anyway for their own gain. It’s not immediately the fault of the provider of the information if that happens.
The field IS rapidly progressing. The question is which applications are useful and that's what Scott Aaronson was talking about when he said "overhype." But he obviously would agree (and has said so many times) that there has been an amazing amount of progress.
It’s funny Sabine cited him to give the illusion he supports her general disposition on the subject
IfJim Kramer states that QC Companies are overvalued, they may indeed be undervalued.
Understand your sentiment but even Jim K can't be wrong all the time.
now that's just newtonian physics
@@katgod people missed out on palantir, they certainly dont wanna miss out on any other gold rush
It beats the Tulip Bulb Hype !
Black Tulip would make a great quantum computing company name.
@@EnginAtiktasty with cheese and beer 🍺
...At least the Tulip mania produced some pretty flowers.
What about it?
Tulips, AI and quantum computers are not products of hype, they are products of monetary inflation.
Quantum computing is in a superposition right now. All companies are loosing money and performing really well at the same time.
Maybe I should write a paper about predicting tachion wave oscillations in quantum holograms using AI.
You should, it would be interesting to see if anyone refutes it because most of this stuff is beyond 95% of the world population and is all taken on faith. Having faith in mankind to always be truthful is a losing proposition. As a group we even seem to like liars especially if they say things we like. You will have to watch out for Sabine though.
Hilarious. lol
I'll take Pump-n-Dump for $100, Alex. 🤑
It’s not pump and dump, it’s not even back at its IPO of $10.
The quantum computing hype is reminiscent of the bubble memory hype which persisted for four decades.
Good new visual palette for the New Year. Your dark energy post and this one reflect your continued attention to and reflection on both frontiers. Thank you.
I must give Sabine credit. I saw this video when it was released and sold 80% of my quantum stocks immediately. This video saved me thousands 😊
Another problem on how companies are reading the increasing amount of publications about quantum computing is that they lack a fundamental understanding of how science works nowadays. Most of us, scientists, are publishing in very specific journals for a very selected type of knowledge field (like for example: chemistry-> quantum chemistry-> electrochemistry->with classical or quantum computers). So, when we publish we are writing for an audience that has a similar knowledge than we have, otherwise they won’t understand anything at all of what they are reading. And of course we don’t need to emphasize the clear and obvious thing that so far there isn’t any quantum advantage (or supremacy or even utility) just exploratory attempts, mostly using simulators in classical computers (mainly just laptops). People reading and understanding these publications will know this obvious thing just by reading the methods used to produce the data. Of course most of the people talking about quantum computing don’t know any of this because this is the work mainly done by students and postdocs.
Every week someone “revolutionizes” quantum optimization by running a variational circuit on a toy problem with 20 nodes 😂
Look, it is true peer-review is focused on a specific segment of specialists, and this has always been true. However, the scientific community in the past tried to discuss, send clarifications, explanations and so to anybody which requested them, and generally avoided making big claims unless the content was truthfully big.
Basically, it is about making yourself clear about your communication with others. The language you choose to use and the follow-up you decide to make of it are totally partly your responsibility and need to assume and behave as such. Intentionally misleading (even when remaining technically correct) to then gather stock investors is anything but good ethics. You can say the same thing without the need to be misleading about it.
I know the current economic system incentives for attitudes like this, and I understand everyone needs to make a living, but one thing is following the system the minimum possible to live decently, and another is going full speed to be the best on a system where the best is being the worst ethical possible.
A big problem i see in papers is that to get access to a device, often researchers have to partner with a company. To make that company happy, you have to be generally positive about the industry in your writeup. Lots of "likely near term use case" and "promising field of research" type sentiment. On top of that the journals want the hype too. I had some trouble publishing a paper for which I only used a simulator because I thought the pages of math explaining the method should have been more than enough without actually running any examples of any kind. As soon as we included running something on a QC the critiques went away, even though it added nothing scientifically.
Man when investing started to bleed into science I knew things were messed... Only in USA when the big thing is money beyond anything and the act to sell matters more than the contribution added to society.
Not just in USA. The Ponzi number games that current financial feodalism (NOT capitalism!) plays teaches people to play mainly pump and dump games as sub-ponzies of ponzi financial system, pretending that they are "innovation" while they are just plain fraud. And while players know they are fraud, they play the "market psychology" instead of any genuine innovation of long term benefits.
Sabine, I don’t think it is fair or accurate to say that “not much is happening” in the quantum computing field. There is a big gap between “there is not much happening” and the kind of hype that you rightfully critique. The truth is probably somewhere in between these two extremes.
No.
She literally purposely or indirectly affected sentiment on it, don't listen to it, costed some who did, one has to understand how news are sold today, and I think she is also mad for not investing in it (very likely she did and wanted to keep the price lower to keep buying).
Funnily enough a massive price correction started on January 8th on all the stocks mentioned... [Rigetti -70% as of Jan 13th]
I knew this day would come! When I actually know more about the subject than Sabine 😂
In fairness, this has nothing to do with quantum computing per se, but about the insanity that currently poses as capital markets. There is a ton of surplus liquidity sloshing around in a game of musical chairs at the moment. Every so often it sloshes around trying to find a narrative to hype with the help of twitter etc. It could be the latest zero-intrinic-value crypto, or a semi real business with a whiff of a story. These stocks are just beneficiaries of people hyping the Google story, and looking for the next Palantir or whatever.
Unless the story can be maintained, or perpetuated with new announcements that help to maintain the hype, or the companies do actually start to show real progress, the liquidity will desert these companies as quick as it entered.
stoncs are a pyramid scheme that everyone has bought into knowlingly
In September of last year, news came out that someone managed to run ‘Doom’ (a video game) on a quantum computer.
Forget the fact that it was a stripped down wireframe version of part of a level of the original ‘Doom’ from the early 1990’s running at ~15 fps, on a virtual quantum computer simulation with MANY times the number of Q-bits than what anyone even has on their drawing boards for development yet.
Edward Farhi is a prime example of "more education doesn't necessarily make you a better person"
Extremely educated does not mean that you are better person , ethically or morally it can make you the opposite , the person's character plays the major role in that.
Well, more education does make you a better person, but it has to be education in topics like ethics, leadership, civics, etc.
Why’s that?
Why? He publishes papers for scientists in scientific journals. Not opion pieces in the NYT that everyone needs to buy quantum shares now. How is he responsible that the general public, investors, the companies themselves and science journalists misunderstand or misrepresent his findings? He is a scientist who writes for scientists in his domain, not NDT.
I bought some quantum stocks earlier in the year, flipped them for profit, then watched them continue to soar WAY past where I thought their value were. Nice to see my skeptical nature in their negative revenue was warranted
Markets always rush in madly after the 'next big thing', and then crash when it doesn't pan out or the market's too bloated to maintain the boom.
Remember the 'Dot Com Crash'? Everybody invested a gazillion dollars into anyone with a website... even when there was no product or business model whatsoever.
I recommend Scott's Shtetl-Optimized blog for some sanity in quantum computing.
Great blog, an insight to a legend in the field
Pom pom free perspectives.
someone recommending a BLOG, in the year of our lord 2025?
maybe there is hope
Yeah he directly contradicts this channel regularly. Hilarious she’s citing him to give the illusion he supports her general disposition on this subject
@@coreyleander7911 Here is the latest comment from Scott Aaronsons blog Shtetl-Optimized about this very video:
Update: Here’s Sabine Hossenfelder’s take. I don’t think she and I disagree about any of the actual facts; she just decided to frame things much more negatively. Ironically, I guess 20 years of covering hyped, dishonestly-presented non-milestones in quantum computing has inclined me to be pretty positive when a group puts in this much work, demonstrates a real milestone, and talks about it without obvious falsehoods!
4:06 the rare occasion where Jim Cramer is both right and wrong about an investment at the same time, like a qubit
Cramer's Paradox Theory
5:53 The STOCK PRICES falling and then showing a chart on growing future MARKET SIZES is not a contradiction.
it's just a superposition
Best video of the year
If that doesn't age well, then it's a good thing.
"If some people don't feel the burden, that doubles the burden other people have", such a sick, on-point burn : )
Naw, that's being passive aggressive and partaking in devolving the discussion into one devoid of courtesy and respect.
@@cryora To me it very clearly states the situation: "if you don't care about it, that makes things more difficult for other people". I don't think that's passive aggressive, and from the excerpt in the video the other guy was in need of a little shake-up.
@user-sl6gn1ss8p I mean you said it yourself that it was a "sick burn."
@@cryora yes, I just don't think a burn is either necessarily passive aggressive or always undue. In this case I think the burn has a direct, appropriately stinging message.
But of course this is all personal.
@@user-sl6gn1ss8p Well he's indirectly blaming him for the problems of other people. He could have instead stopped and considered his point of view and thought about how he could make his point without sounding like his is trying to pass blame. He has a point, but other people are still entitled to their thoughts.
Quantum situation is crazy
Stock price changes in these types of companies are completely psychological. They have no basis in fundamental analysis, so have no way to analyze them to any value. People "bet" on which stock like this will win and therefore gain them huge amounts of money. Of course, most of the people betting here have no idea how the technology and market will turn out.
Quantum computing is just the latest "next greatest thing" in a long line of NGTs. Entrepreneurial, cutting edge, technology companies and their academic partners, collaborators, founders, fellow coconspirators have played this game for decades. As my scumbag attorney partner told me in my own start-up technology company, "We don't have to be technologically successful, we just need to be able to develop a good enough story to be acquired". There is an aspect of a Ponzi scheme in every new technology start-up, even the most ethical and authentic. Sabine rightly points out that without ethical disclosure of both the promise and limitation of a new technology scientists are promoting investment theses that often punish naive investors.
Well that implies getting acquired is easier to achieve than being technologically successful, which is not always true. I would think it is harder to get acquired without being technologically successful, compared to getting technologically successful (or at least demonstrating some real promise) and then acquired. Even if you do manage to do it, it could end up becoming a scandal like Theranos, and you pay for it later on.
This type of comment is the result of Sabine’s propaganda on quantum computing. Incredibly sad stuff
This video plus the Jim Cramer segment told me what I need to know. Im going all in
And how did that work?
"Viable quantum computers are a decade away" - I have heard this "decade away" thing elsewhere...
Which decade 🤔1880s or 2080s
Well, I have a flying car. That's what matters
Yeah, well at least Sabine says "at least..."
It was 3 decades for nuclear fusion, although it has now come down to about 5 years.
@@patelk464But it took 5 decades getting to 5 years from one decade. 😂
I watch Cramer's show daily and always enjoy his no nonsense analysis. Very interesting and eye opening video Sabine!
Trust scientists *exactly* as much as you would trust anyone off the street. Because they ARE anyone off the street, just trying to make money, some honestly, and some not honestly. They are not morally or ethically better than anyone else in any way.
This is why reproduction is part of science. Way more important than peer review (that only checks it is not obviously wrong).
@@cherubin7th Yep, which is why "trust the science" is exactly the opposite of science. Science is never about trust, science is about verifiability. Question science, and especially question scientists. The best way to tell if science is legit is whether questioning is welcomed. Legit science and scientists love to be questioned, because they can go into the details. Propaganda hates to be questioned, because the "expert" might be exposed for the fraud they are.
They are worst.
Maybe but you can't equate scientists with Wall Street traders , totally different occupations one just for profit the other for science but with many bad apples.
@@cherubin7th There's a relatively greater incentive to produce completely novel research than to reproduce already published research, in terms of funding and publish-ability. Sometimes, research groups will avoid trying to reproduce research out of fear that they obtain different and contradictory results - because now you have a problem, either you are wrong, or the other research group is wrong. Research groups aren't going to want to openly admit they've erred and put their careers on the line for the greater good of science. Nor would they be thrilled about the idea of challenging another research group's findings thereby inviting more criticism and scrutiny in their own work, which also puts their careers at risk. As much as you want and expect it to be honorable, it can be a dirty business. No different from going to court over a dispute, and both parties pleading themselves innocent and the other guilty, when it can only be one or the other.
The taxpayers, donors, students, and everyone who has invested in the scientific institutions deserve better.
Thank you, Sabine.
4:30 i remember this reporter calling 4chan a programming language and it will forever be burned in my memory
bubble just popped 50% down. wow.
"not forthcoming" sounds like Clauser's new book on quantum experiment data.
To be honest, research papers in medicine, the same way, are covering very context based areas usually (multifactorial effects in bodily biochemistry aside, there is often hidden conditions, variables that can be tucked away). Creating even more illusions for ones that don't see the whole picture.
If Jim Cramer said to dump your money into a stock,NEVER DO IT, you will regret it
Love your new shirt!!
Farhi’s flippant disavowal of intellectual responsibility makes my blood boil.
He isn't an investor, doesn't talk to investors and doesn't even encourage investors to use his work. That said, stocks go up and down without any connection to science, this "responsibility" can't even be applied.
@@traumflughe represents a public education institution funded by the taxpayer, he should feel a degree of responsibility in the direction of development of frontier technology.
It makes my blood boil that you’re suggesting Farhi should be pre-debunking what *others* might incorrectly conclude from his correct science - all to scratch the insane “nooo hype and positivity are bad!” itch you Sabine partisans have
@@triton62674and what is that responsibility? You’re saying he should be actively pre-debunking what people might incorrectly conclude from his correct work? It’s remarkable how desperate you folks are to scratch that “noooo hype is bad even when it’s right!” itch.
@@triton62674 Yes, definitely. An academic scientist’s job is to increase the world’s net understanding of their subject. That is what they are paid for. The topic of discussion is misunderstandings so significant that they can cause massive stock bubbles. I don’t know what exactly the right response is, but I know it is not to shout “I don’t care!” and shut down discussions by people who do.
Regarding the "study in mice" comparison: there's a big part of the fitness supplements industry that takes papers what see a slight effect in mice and then sell supplements claiming the same effects for humans. So even if the author has big bold letters with these caveats, people don't care, they want quick and simple answers.
And with the "publish or perish" environment we see in current academia, I don't blame people for not going against the grain. I don't like it, but I don't think I'd be able to do it differently.
They inflate the value of stock in the same sense they inflate crypto
Wonderful video. Your work is indispensable.
In my humble opinion there is no right or wrong answer to this situation. Both sides have merit for different reasons.
It is both right and wrong 😂
@@lyrimetacurl0 Depends on the observer.
@lyrimetacurl0 Not so much right or wrong, more which result do you allow to happen.
I agree with the scientist that said he doesn't care. His job isn't to anticipate what people will think of his research, nor to police crazy pitches to investors. That's the job of journalists and investors. They have to do due diligence.
I had a coworker who had a quantum flatulence problem. He would let a silent one out in a meeting but it didn't exist until someone smelled it.
Thanks for bringing me back down to earth with a quantum bump.
07:34: This loss of credentials is very important.
Thankyou Sabine!
2:44 So, one man is concerned with the world learning from his work, and the other is concerned with showing the world how smart he is.
“Variety is the very spice of life, that gives it all its flavor.”
(William Cowper)
@@heisag Some flavor is arse flavor.
How could you have possibly concluded that?
@@coreyleander7911by their attitudes... not everyone is autistic, mate
Question: could a quantum computer stop the mining of bitcoin and thus stop the excessive waste of these miners?
Lying through omission is still lying
Love your shows❤
I have some sympathy with the "I don't care as long as it's correct" attitude. It's very hard to guess all the ways that non-experts might misunderstand your paper, and it's hard enough to get a paper published without adding self-imposed difficulties (like summarising it for laymen) that other competing papers have no obligation to follow. The only way to solve this is for journals (about hot topics like cancer cures & quantum computing) to require that all papers include summaries for laymen - and if some people still misunderstand/mis-sell it after that, then tough luck. Investors really should hire experts in the field to interpret papers & summarise progress, if they want to decide if some highly technical field is making progress & likely to produce profits in the short-medium term - but of course they won't usually do that, since they are generally investing other people's money (aka pension money).
It seems people only care about laymen being able to understand science when those laymen are moneyed interests.
Then again, if making science accessible for moneyed interests helps make it accessible for science-curious laymen, then that's good I suppose.
🎉 S.H. is the authority!
Quantum computers are heading the way of room temp superconductors or fusion energy.
All of what you say is "spot on" but you might feature the stock price escalation due to excess cash sitting on the sidelines and jumping in on the hype. I had a real laugh when @6:52 the 'stock' photo Team SH selected shows two workers with the one viewing the microscope wearing safety glasses while the other titrating a liquid not so equipped.
It's the age of The Grift. "Everyone else is doing quantum papers, eff it, I'll take anyone's money, my career is almost over, time to max out my estate.".
Or, "I've been grifting on string theory et al for forty years, not because it was proven, but because it was popular. I and others have made our careers out of, well, nothing, wasting billions. Now that I'm very old, I'll quickly denounce string theory and slam the door. My legacy is safe! Isn't grifting, err, physics great?"
The rot of The Grift via 'not caring' has gotten all the way through the universities.
This video shows two truths that people find difficult to believe:
1) Science doesn't work the way people think it does.
2) Financial markets don’t work the way people think they do.
Quantum hype... is media hype
Quantum Computing stocks collapsing has been projected since the second quarter of 2024. I also invested wrongly, but Vivian's professionalism is high on the stock market. Today, I'm glad I didn't fall victim to the dip.
I was scorched! Quantum computing equities are plummeting, just as the market was surging forward. What a bittersweet twist!
Lots of people have been talking about Vivian R Campbell, i guess have now i will decide to follow the right suit in following a solid step of a financial advisor and Quantum ran me in dip of $98,000 today.
I just looked her up on Google and I am impressed by her track record after viewing her official website. This is what I needed! I sent an email and await her response. Thanks for sharing.
As is customary, the equities are merely market ballooning and will soon require another market to do so. They are the heads of the financial balloon so better i get it right with my portfolio now.
The market is in a giant bubble and they are running out of bullshit stories about AI to tell, so quantum was the next best thing.
I only very recently became interested enough in quantum computers to start paying attention and trying to actually figure out how the actually work. This research led me pretty quickly to Scott Aaronson, and I have been so impressed with him. Brilliant but grounded, full of curiosity and integrity. Such a true scientist!
Purple is a great color.
Deadens her hair, though. If it's natural, the lighter and pinker colors brought it out better, maybe. thanks
@AisleEpe-oz8kf purple is my favorite.
But mauve is not.
One thing about those quantum computers, they would make a nice chandolier when obsolete.
Because quantum jailbroke science with its rigorous requirements of evidence. John Clauser provided no raw data, and still won the Nobel prize. For what exactly? Fiction?
Yes basically
Obama won a nobel Peace prize, and all he did was be a black guy that usee drones to murder children in countries we weren't at war with.
22 likes. Incredible the cranks Sabine draws
@@coreyleander7911 hey Cory, you have any raw experimental data that demonstrates bohr's quantum entanglement? Let me know if you ever find that.
@ lmao yeah man that’s what all of quantum computing is based on. It’s an experimental realization of quantum entanglement, for decades now. Insane how many people there are like you out there that completely disregard science in general because you don’t understand it.
Edward Farhi published a paper in 2019 which says "The _promise_ of quantum computers is that certain computational tasks might be executed exponentially faster on a quantum processor than on a classical processor... our benchmarks currently indicate that the equivalent task for a state-of-the-art classical supercomputer would take approximately 10,000 years". This is hype. The average reader would get the impression that quantum computers will be a million times faster than 'classical'' supercomputers. If this was true then they would certainly be worth investing in. But IBM showed that the same task could be performed on a 'classical' system in 2.5 days _worst case_ with far greater fidelity.
Quantum computing is the one place where that meme "instead of buying an expensive computer why don't we just emulate an expensive computer on a cheap computer?" is true
I'm more impressed that Sabine is an expert in all advanced topics.
Is she?
@LisaCulton Good question!
Is there any evidence she is?
@@coreyleander7911 Are you familiar with sarcasm?
The problem is, to try to finance "basic (research) science" by means of private investors... In a ideal world (what is this?) should be the state (the government) of the countries, who put the money for these researches and developments, I mean, to finance the "investigacion basica" , which has no expectation (no security) to find a practical application in the near future.
For example, can You imagine Albert Einstein looking for sponsors and investors to finance his research time (1907-1915) in Gravitation (General Relativity Theory) ? It took him approximately 10 years of work (and during this time without being able to present a valid (useful) result). And the risk: is indeed, that after many years of research work... You finally have ... still "empty hands" (no results).
its time for a quantum crypto coin to celebrate the lack of substance
AI Agent quantum crypto coin
If quantum computers can actually do useful things then why the attitude?
@@Apjooz exactly, but we’re not there, so lets valuate it more realistically
@@jcnwillemsen The market size is almost nothing.
Other big issue is about the estimation of resources necessary to solve realistic problems (e.g. in material science, medicine, etc). As a rule of thumb, the size of future quantum computers is estimated mainly based on the error correction problem. I see as a very good thing that, apparently, physicists, informatics, engineers, and some mathematicians have started to work together on producing algorithms for these real life applications on the quantum computers. Unfortunately, the integration with chemists, biologists, and other experts from similar fields is not progressing as fast as necessary for the development of these applications. And as a consequence, all the estimations on the future quantum computers resources underestimate the size of a challenge that these problems represent.
Quantum computing breakthroughs have the equivalent energy of hyperbolic fairy dust.
A paper with no errors will be published soon
Multidimensional hyperbolic fairy dust. It would take a normal computer septillions of years to generate the same amount of fairy dust.
Eddie Bernays and P T Barnum Inc would be proud.
I have a space yacht, but need funds to develop the engine. Born every minute.
Aronson just called out Fahri for being part of the problem. Fahri doesn't even see the problem. THAT is the real problem.
Most guys who pull theorems out of arbitrary ex falso "axioms" don't realize that THAT is the real problem, because for any proposition you want to make, you can beg the question and make up a set of "axioms" that satisfies your need, and then bypass Gödel etc. undecidability results by wrong playing IF-THEN language game in the form "Supposing the "axioms" are not inconsistent...".
Such axiomatics are incoherent and inconsistent from the get go, because in mathematics and logic we are only allowed to deduce theorems from First Principles that are inherently true. That is the real meaning of mathematical induction, deduction is valid only when it is induces from mathematically true First Principles in top-down direction.
What problem is he part of?
Interesting vid. Thanks. I don’t think it’s necessarily quantum computers alone so much as it will be AI AND quantum computing together. It might take AI (maybe even ASI) to effectively use quantum computers in the near future (within five years?) and to do the engineering to go from 105 cubits to 1M… 🤔
It seems to me that quantum computers are similar to pet rocks- they got very expensive very fast, but in the end all they can do is hold a stack of paper in place and maybe be thrown at a bottle.
Luckily what “seems to you” doesn’t have any effect on quantum computing investment
This reminds me of a song my late Father taught me as a child: "Off we go, into the Territory, Filter Queen, , always a sale...So jump, to sign, the dotted line , 'cause nothing can stop a Filter Queen". (Sung to the tune of the Air Force Hymn.)
I just love how clearly defensive that little rant was: “I dont CARE what people do with my papers, only that they’re correct. I don’t CARE…”
He got called out on being an amoral asshole in real time and displayed a complete lack of emotional intelligence about it. 🤣🤣
As Dr. Fauci said in another context, “I don’t know how to explain to you that you should care about other people.”
Like the new top!!❤
I nearly bought a guitar in two-tone lavender once. Great color choice for your features. You will undoubtedly become the equivalent of Cramer, featured on German television in the coming year.
I think the hype is that, once quantum computing "works", whatever that practical threshold really is, people expect to be able to hack crypto-anything and thieve currency from blockchains or mine currency without needing the power of a small city to find a suitable hash. Whatever the motivation i.e. greed, i.e. wealth without work, or curiosity, my feed has lately been covered with quantum teleportation over the internet.
Gosh, "quantum" and "internet" and "teleportation", all in one sentence? Where do I throw my money? Wait, I'm in a super-position of both poor AND destitute, and have no money to throw. Hmmm.
Rant on you crazy diamond!
I wonder how this video can be compared with Sabine's video about freedom of speech in academia. In that video researchers were afraid to publish a paper because of the consequences of the results.
You are absolutely wrong here 7:26 . No one hired him to apply his research to a business idea or a cure for cancer. Therefore, he has no obligation, not even moral obligation to predict how people may abuse his scientific research papers. That onus is on them! No matter how furious you are with how people abuse scientific papers. The scientist bears no burden whatsoever for this. If someone cannot understand the research they should hire a scientist to interpret or apply it for them.
It is the burden of the speaker to express his/her ideas in a manner that lends itself to the understanding of the listener. Knowingly occluding the actual meaning by is a moral failing
@@dabronx340 He doesn't talk to business opportunists.
I agree to extent that he may not know how his work is being used. This part is not really clear in this video although it is implied that he knows his work is being misused or interpretered incorrectly.
@ he will also use this misconception in getting grants filing patents and supporting his future work. Let’s see how realistic his rhetoric is at the next university fund raiser
@ he talks to organizations and corporations that fund his research. He files both private and government grant requests. He uses resources of universities and or private equity. He doesn’t just sit in his room and write papers that are not read. His summaries are read and if he fills them w jargon and hides the ball, then he is like every other snake oil salesman
Have you get in touch with quantum psychology and quantum therapy? That´s the acme of lunacy and I think is difficult to beat.
Big Tech is a grift factory. Once we put GPS into your phone, we closed the last mile. Everything we invent from now on is basically smoke and mirrors
no, no
you see now they're inventing new ways to ruin everything that's already been built
WHILE also making everyone's gramd a nazi and everyone mom an anti-vaxxer
don't you dare question the wonder things Big Tech has invented
This is an excellent video which serves to illustrate what most of your viewers know already, there is so much hype about quantum computing. Scientists need to be truthful about what they write in their research papers and thus not omit pertinent details.