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"
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.
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 ....
hype a technology, >raise money from investors, >go public > get funding from the government > pay yourself and friends millions > close company > retire rich af
Well China is trying to create their own quantum computer, so the boomer politicians are gonna dump money into research and development just for the fact that they hate China 😂
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.
..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.
"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.
@@sirsneakybeakyThe networks which were combined to create the internet were useful individually. Also ARPANET was restricted to noncommercial use. Even in hindsight it wasn't a good VC investment.
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
@@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.
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!
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.
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"
@@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."
No, it is very much a hoax, although in truth it emerged from a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of quantum mechanics. In short, wave-function collapse is a myth (and no, it has never been verified). The probability-density functions are STATISTICAL in nature, not physical/actual. The "Copenhagen Interpretation" however chose to construe them as such, and as a result the idea came about to extend it to what was later dubbed "entanglement", which they then attempted to "verify" by looking at the up/down spin of electrons. But it really proves absolutely nothing because spinors MUST obey the mathematical (symmetry) rules of Lie algebras anyway and hence there is no entanglement per-se but rather a loose STATISTICAL relationship between the (wave functions of) two particles (which was already obvious). And that is why we do not have functioning quantum computers today. Because it rests on a false assumption (which was, by the way, the very subject of Schrödinger famous "Is the cat dead or alive?" thought experiment, a paper which Einstein himself publicly advocated).
@@FranzBiscuit That just doesn't make any sense. Whether quantum computers work doesn't in any way rely on the Copenhagen interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation is, after all, just an interpretation of a theory. It's not a theory onto itself and you don't need to make predictions.
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.
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.
@@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
I don't think you truly understand the problem. It's not a matter of useful vs useless. It's a matter of being achievable. All the cases you presented (other than quantum) were clearly achievable. Quantum computing? Not so much.
No. This is the Economic industrial complex making sure you don't pay attention to the Technology so you won't understand you'll be able to use quantum computing in your home and without THEM charging you for usage and subscription to the Q.C. Server only they and a few others have the money to "provide".
This is why I really like this channel. You make really interesting videos that no one else does. I don't think I've ever seen another video like this. Quantum computing is one of those things no one criticizes.
It would be good if no-one else does videos like this, because it conflates the issue of "will quantum computing be useful" with "are their grifters surrounding an immature but promising technology". It's not exactly clickbait, but it's misleading.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
Only a month later and what is probably the main technical hurdle this video discussed, error correction, is purported to have been overcome. Scaling will still present issues no doubt, but perhaps is this the last fundamental uncertainty we had about the viability of quantum computing? Does this accomplishment, if it holds, sway your outlook?
@TheChzoronzon okay, I don't know why you felt the need to point that out when I even reinforced the idea that this was a tentative discovery when I said "if it holds". All scientific claims should be held in the appropriate mindset until they're verified and peer reviewed. I thought I was definitely giving this accomplishment that space with what I said and yet you chose not to answer the question. And as far as claims go from the things I've seen regarding this, I believe it has a high probability of proving correct. In other words this is not some flimsy, theoretical claim, it was theorized and then the experiment was performed so barring some major error this is likely to be confirmed. As such I ask you again does that sway your outlook?
I did my PhD on experimental quantum information, and I can confidently say that most people within the field roll their eyes at science journalism coverage of quantum computing. This video is not wrong about the fact that there are a lot of grifters, who promise the world and deliver nothing. The backlash will definitely come, and I would not be surprised if investors start pulling out soon (for this reason I've avoided working for any of these companies). At the same time, there is true promise to the technology, and if someone manages to build a fault-tolerant, useful quantum computer, I believe that it will be one of the greatest technological achievements of mankind, because it is truly an immense challenge. However, people need to be more honest about the current state of the technology, its proven applications and future timelines, and at the same time science media needs to stop amplifying the voices of people who stand to gain materially from hyping the technology.
The probability of a quantum computer getting the correct answer will forever remain approximately the same as a SWAG - the SWAG being cheaper, of course.
@@internetpointsbank So, I'll know it works when they steal my bitcoin wallet? Because let's face it, that's the only real-world example of the need for a working quantum computer.
@@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.
@@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 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.
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 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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@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.
Quantum computing should still be in the lab and receiving private or government funding, instead of going public like they have a deliverable product.
Another key point about RSA is that we try to minimize how often we use it. PK encryption is slow. We use it to negotiate shared symmetric keys that are basically unguessable. We'll use those keys for a bit, then negotiate new ones.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 $15,000 in fuel credit. Every car company bar them and BMW and Honda has abandoned HFCVs because battery electric vehicles are cheaper to buy, cheaper to refuel, and can be "refueled" at home. The nanobot dream of self-replicating robots recursively assembling smaller versions of themselves (I remember Zyvex in 1997) ran into hard physical problems of stiction and power supply. But micro-machining, 3-D mechanical lithography, and scanning tunneling microscopes that can move single atoms are all commercially available, and other researchers realized that DNA already precisely assembles molecules and are repurposing it. Watch Veritasium's video on the world's smallest Nerf gun. The field changed and developed in all these different directions. The hype cycle is common to many new technologies, but the progress of each technology is very different. Wall Street Millennial has a tiresome propensity to fit every technology story into the same narrative.
I hate this relatively new trend when money, marketing and hype take over innovations in technology and reduce them to scams that worsen preexisting products or make new useless barely functional products. It happened with Blockchains it happened with Quantum Computing and now it's happening with AI.
It's not relatively new. Companies hyping their potential to raise money is as old as can be. And the hype cycle _doesn't_ reduce the technology to "scams", W$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 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.
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...
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
rsa keys are used not to encrypt bulk data as in the example here: 09:09 but instead its used for key exchange of aes keys that actually encrypt the data since both alice and bob have the same symmetric key.
ECDHE is by far the most common key exchange. Forward secrecy / no single encryption key property of DH makes it superior to RSA. Also ROBOT attack made fun things to RSA some years back. You will get a bad test score on SSLabs TLS tester if you only support RSA. Basically law enforcement and NSA loves people still using RSA key exchange, since a single break (such as stealing your key) deciphers all your past coms.
I've been reading about quantum computers since 1998. It was all the hype. Compare that with cable internet, Visual C++, Unreal Engine, stuff that just showed up one day and took over the world. Quantum computing seems to be going the way of steampunk, and maybe someday there will be Quantumpunk.
Rick and Morty is quantum-punk. Its premise is that all information in the universe already exists, and all it takes is a mind that can see all realities in all dimensions to find the correct combination of where and when, and a portal gun to get you there. Instead of baking a pizza, it tells you that it is more efficient to find a parallel universe where pizza is the dominant life-form on earth, and travel there.
@justifiably_stupid4998 multiverse storylines are fun. Unfortunately it seems the sciences think this kind of thinking is somehow useful. It seems far more religious than anything.
@EricJacobusOfficial yep. This is quantum computing in a nutshell. Instead of learning the principles behind making food, quantum assumes it is faster to reverse engineer food into its atomic components and create a reality where those components combined into the food we already wanted. Quantum is not capable of discovering any new information because it operates on the assumption that there is no such thing as new information.
The very basis of "Quatum" is "Uncertainty", thus, the probability for errors and the error correction rate will always be a huge problem and the outcomes will still be up for questioning because the means by which the quantum computer came up with its result will be nearly impossible to verify due to possible probabilities and probable possibilities.
"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.
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 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.
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”
@@skierpage Which QC companies are producing actual quantum computers that are scalable? If the cost of scalability is a large power of 10 per bit, then QC will never ever be useful, and that's assuming it actually works - which is in doubt.
I built a quantum computer in my basement. It looks like a black box, and it does nothing, but one day it will change the world. The price for this marvel of technology: a mere $1 billion. That's right, for only 1 billion dollars, I will sell you this computer that will likely generate you unlimited sums of money in the future.
at 3:33 you have a mistake because yes number of states depends on 2^bits, but that is not the reason why you need less qbits then bits simply because even the number of states a normal computer can represent increases as 2^bit
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.
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".
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.
... 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.
As a layman on this subject, it seems that you need to have determinancy just to enter your algorithm and start data to do anything useful apart from generate random numbers. I can understand that running a programme several times to get a probability answer might work for some applications, but how do you know if you are starting these runs from the same place if the qubits could be anything? How do you even load the algorithm and make it stay the same as when you loaded it? Dynamic ram and magnetic core memory used to " destroy" its own contents when read and had to be refreshed, but at least you knew what it was supposed to be. If the qubit could be anything, then you dont know whether you are restoring the correct information. I may be missing something here, but maybe thats why zapata went bust?
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
“An idiot admires complexity, a genius admires simplicity, a physicist tries to make it simple, for an idiot anything the more complicated it is the more he will admire it, if you make something so clusterfcked he can't understand it he's gonna think you're a god cause you made it so complicated nobody can understand it. That's how they write journals in Academics, they try to make it so complicated people think you're a genius” ― Terry Davis, Creator of Temple OS
“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943 “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977 “Apple is already dead.” Nathan Myhrvold, former Microsoft CTO, 1997
People can be wrong. OK. That was never in doubt. The question is, who is wrong and why? Will it be this video, or the people who say that quantum computing will cure cancer despite not being able to do anything other than generate 1s and 0s in a chaotically unpredictable state?
This is a good video. Quantum computing is surrounded by massive amounts of unrealistic hype, and I believe that many investors will be sorely disappointed. I suggest that all these "investors" go back to college and take some courses in quantum mechanics. After that, do some experiments where slight disturbances can kill the results. After that, take some basic business courses. And after you have done all that, please report what you have found. I predict that this will cool your unrealistic enthusiasm.
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.
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.
No, there is no practical difference between a hang glider and a fighter jet. There is a LOT of difference between a traditional computer and a QC. For example, we have traditional computers all around us, but only schrodinger's cat can actually speak to the problem of quantum computers. And of course, if you don't feed the cat, that equation resolves to zero over time.
As someone who actually works in the field, I have never found a more accurate video on qc than this. No bs, no hype and exaggeration. QC is an extreme fun field to work on but no more than that. You can appreciate the amount of physics and skillset needed to only grasp some of the basic concepts of QC but the pratical implications are REALLY far away
Quantum computers now are like classical computers 100 years ago. The size of a room, incredibly difficult to program, expensive, niche, kinda just bad all around. You can imagine all the same points in this video being made for classical computers, right down to the "classical computers do it better" being replaced with "human operators do it better" We have no way of knowing whether quantum computers will end up being like classical computers, or end up being one of those failed niche technologies. It all depends on breakthroughs. Each one could be just around the corner or 100 years out, and we don't even know how many we need. So everyone is banking on it being soon, because they really don't want to miss out on another "computers"
You are assuming that we are going to find amazing ways to make quantum computers much cheaper, like the jump from vacuum tubes to transistors to integrated circuits, but it isn't at all clear at this point that advancement will happen. Given how much R&D has already been poured into quantum computers, I don't think that we are going to get those kinds of break-throughs in quantum computing any time soon, because we should have already seen them after 25 years of working on the tech.
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.
@Sean-sk3nq with the exception of Quantum Machine Learning and VQA, none of these are AI related. Btw why are you even talking about AI? We are discussing Quantum Computers. Moreover, everything can be effectively reduced to "simple computing" (as you said). In fact, my old Nokia 3301 can do the exact same calculations as a supercomputer, but it would take much longer and would be absurdly more inefficient. It would make it humanly impractical. You can try making a supercomputer do the exact same tasks as a Quantum Computer, but it will simply be insanely inefficient and would take infinitely longer
I don't know if it's true but I heard that the quantum oracle in quantum computers is implemented using classical logic. If so, that seems suspicious to me. Some other things I have doubts about are nuclear fusion reactors and protein folding simulations. No doubt the protein folding simulations achieve accurate results, but what initial conditions do they use?
@@Quakeboy02 But isn't the folding process very sensitive to the initial condition of the unfolded protein? There are zillions of possible folded shapes, and in a nonlinear system like that the tiniest changes in initial condition will produce vastly different folded shapes.
@@Anders01 Google "Folding@home". It's a distributed computing system dedicated to folding proteins. In a distributed computing system, the master computer dispenses slices of a puzzle to volunteer computers which then solve that slice, send the solution to the master, and ask for more work. If your project is well defined and can be broken into many small parts, but takes a lot of computing power, a distributed computing system is what you need. And there are a lot of volunteers who give away free time on their home computer(s) to help solve various problems. "Boinc" (another distributed computing project) used to distribute BTC mining (as well as other projects) and share fractional BTC for coins found, but they stopped that some time ago.
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.
Sure but we don't judge things by what they will be. And currently quantum computers haven't done anything. Therefore they're nothing. WHEN they exist, they can being to argue for themselves not being a scam. Until then it's all one gigantic "it's gonna happen into the future, trust me bro" circle jerk
@ that’s just false. We judge things by what they will be all the time. When you work you get paid, usually not the same moment but in the future, at the end of the month or something. Do you say that it is useless to you because you haven’t been paid yet? No. We don’t stop all research on new technologies because the specific technology doesn’t work yet, well that’s why we’re researching, to make it work. When talking about possible new technologies, the questions are as following: are there real benefits to the technology once developed and if so how big? Is the technology even feasible? What is the presumptive timeline and expense needed? For quantum computers all I can say is that while maybe overhyped it really is useful, not just in theory. It is in principle feasible as we already demonstrated the technology “in small”. How fast and expensive will it be to get to a useful scale? I don’t know, ask physicists. But that puts it already above other overhyped technologies and I’d say warrants investment. Maybe less money than what the hype pushed into this. Probably most companies investigating it won’t go no where. That is to be expected. Investors better treat it as high risk.
@martinschlegel1823 if you want to work for a HOPE of getting paid, that's on you. The rest of us have it as a guarantee. LoL Sounds like you've never had a real job in your life lol
@@enriquecabrera2137 Well, yeah, high risk investments aren't guaranteed payment. That is how it is. As long as you as an investor know what you're into that's ok. And yes, you absolutely get the jist of it: nothing in the future is 100% asured. But wether it's a scam or not depends on how likely you think there is a success. Working for pay is usually something where you're decently sure you'll get payed even though it's in the future. High risk investments have less of a chance of paying back but if they do might multiply the investment by a significant factor. We are investing all the time in things we don't know will be successfull, in our private lives just as much as the big banks etc. in finance.
To find the smallest element in a list, each element must be inspected. If you double the size of the list, then it will take double the time. Quantum mechanics can't beat this, unless the computer has a magical knowledge of the future. -I think a quantum computer could be used like an analog computer. But analog computers are already cheap and easy to make. I even made one once. For example, you can make an analog computer that uses op amps, resistors and capacitors to solve a differential equation. And this costs a couple of dollars. (And you need an oscilloscope to observe the input and output.) But if quantum computers can only be used like an analog computer, then quantum computers will be the world's most overpriced and overhyped computers of all time.
Any claims about technology or the future being made in 2013 can automatically be dismissed. It was a time of pie in the sky optimism in the face of all reality
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.
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!?!
@@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.
@@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
@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.
Much of what is said here is a valid concern, many of which I share as a cynic towards quantum computing. However, you ought to ask yourself what else you would be investing in. Hard technology, from aerospace to semiconductors to drug engineering has ground to a halt since the 80's, and quantum mechanics is the barrier. The current dogma that quantum computers are the most likely and efficient cure is probably nonsense, but what else are you going to do? What else will you invest in? "AI" is an even more idiotic bubble, although like quantum computing, I would re-frame it as a pie-in-the-sky suppository capsule to sell something more mundane or esoteric and important to the public, politicians, and business leaders who otherwise would not appreciate the merits of what is really being pursued. "Machine learning" is a noxious buzzword for "Statistical modeling and optimization". It has turned every company into a tech company, even if their core product is pizza. This will ultimately accelerate the economy, even if C-3PO style androids are still a century away. Likewise with quantum computing, whose real objective is probably to stimulate progress in control, engineering, and physics of superconductors, semiconductor nanostructures, and atoms. The most valuable fundamental research is stimulated by technology, so one may as well speculate some absurd technology to stimulate the fundamentals, from which the real technology will eventually emerge.
*Honestly those have classic scam warning signs, such as the Gold plating and so on, and the “emperor’s new clothes” style “too complicated to explain to investors” tactic is also a warning sign.*
I normally like your not quite outsider prospective, but I think you missed the mark here by thinking too small. Ever heard of nuclear magnetic resonance? That niche measurement technological analytical and organic chemistry that started in the 1930s? That had little to no practical effect at first? How about magnetic resonance imaging? That first debuted in the late 1970s based entirely on NMR. Would you say that had it hasn't changed the world? That because it requires the magnetics to be cooled to superconductivity they are impractical? (Running out of helium is a problem, yes) What about Moore's law? And how that has powered our modern tech revolution? What are we going to do when we literally can't physically make small enough components to keep up that march of progress? Quantum computing didn't get plucked out of the air - it was the best solution people looking 40+ years out could find to address the physical limitations of classical computer chips.
I don't disagree. On the contrary, I quite enjoyed hearing you openly calling it a hoax. On the other hand, I'm old enough to remember when lasers were best known as "a solution in search of a problem". Obviously, lasers did eventually find enough problems to make the technology very valuable. So, it can happen.
As a PhD student in computer architecture who works directly with QC researchers (none of whom are paid remotely as well as folks in industry are)- you dont understand what you're talking about, not remotely.
After 20 years, we are still stuck at Shor's algorithm. No signs of possible 10k qbits for gerneral quantum algorithm. BTW, I have got my PhD for 10 years. My MS thesis is quatum algorithm. lol.
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.
The difference with qubits is that they can simultaneously represent many values, and if you apply a quantum function to that state, it is simultaneously applied to all of those values. To be more precise, with n qubits, one can create an entangled state where any n bit value is an equally likely result of a quantum measurement of those qubits’ state. If one applies an n-bit function to that state before measuring (stored in ancillary bits for q reasons), the new state is basically a table for the entire function, with every possible n-bit input matched with its corresponding function output. Now, this table is behind the veil of quantum weirdness, so that table is not visible to us. You can only roll the dice, which lets you see one entry of that table chosen at random. It’s amazing that even with all these limitations, that this could still be useful, but it is. Consider Grover’s algorithm, with allows you to search an unsorted list of length N is sqrt(N) time. It creates a quantum state that stores this list, where probability of drawing the desired list entry is maximized. It only uses log(N) qubits (I forget, could be like 2*log(N)), but the final state before measurement “sees” the entire list in a sense and favors the desired search item. The best that a classical computer could do is search the unsorted list one entry at a time.
Except that QCs are touted as encryption breakers, which is actually a deterministic outcome. If the output of QCs is not deterministic, then they have no possible utility.
@@Quakeboy02 If I throw a deck of cards in the air and ask you to search for the Jack of Spades, you would also probably find it in a non-determistic way. Also, if it's dark, maybe you might pick up the King of Spades and then realize it's wrong. A quantum computer can do the same thing. It can error correct, just like a non-determinstic human like you. However, it needs an algorithm that requires minimal error correction or else it'll be too inefficient.
@@texchu8331 That's not my understanding of how QC "works". What my meager mind understands is that a qubit is all things at one time, and then somehow the function "collapses" and the correct answer is suddenly there. There is no error correction, because it's not an iterative process. It's not a guess because it can only collapse to the correct solution. I can sort of understand that if I have a collection of all possible answers as they relate to the possible inputs. What I don't understand is how it can possibly apply to code-breaking where you don't have (and cannot have) a sample correct answer for any of the possible inputs. To me, that's just clown talk. And so far, it's clown talk in the quantum world. Come back to me when you have the answer to br549.
no they don't. the key phrase here is _at the same time_ . if you have two bits you can process (0,0), (0,1) (1,0 ) (1,1) only sequentially. here, you can process them _simultaneously_ .
Not even a month and proven wrong by Willow. The entire point of the video, error correction, is largely solved. Turns out when you thought we need 'orders of magnitude more chips', you were no different from those who thought the solution to carry more load is more horses. The physics problem is quickly giving way to the engineering problem, and with the pace of things, I don't expect it to be long. As for practical uses, the test you describe as useless is anything but. Quantum functionalities will work that way, and future computing will be fine tuned for that. Can see a 1950s you dismissing the digital computer because it's not doing the same thing as the paper punch machines. As for progress, it's anything but linear. Once the physics is fully solved, we'll see decades of progress in months. As for uses, I think we have enough quotes of people decades ago mocking the computer. Quantum promises the ultimate sci-fi world. I think we can be a little bit more patient. Remember to watch ads to fund both Google's R&D and Wall Street Millennial's skeptism
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.
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.
@@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
Great analysis, thank you! Could you help me with something unrelated: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How should I go about transferring them to Binance?
My gut feeling is that quantum decoherence makes it as hard to add effective qbits to quantum computers as it is to increase the performance of classical computers. So quantum computers will remain behind classical computers forever.
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.
Quantum computing will neither be a success or a failure, it will be ever suspended in a state of uncertainty.
Underrated joke
True! In all probability.
Niceeee
Well Said
It will more likely be both a success and a failure simultaneously.
The more confusing a technology is, the easier it is to use it to extract money from people.
And the more likely it will never work, and all the engineers already have realized that it is a scam
Is that why your mom keeps buying calculators?
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"
Just like crypto and the blockchain.
Or views on youtube apparently. People talking about things they know almost nothing about....ridiculous....
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.
Does a few decades sound reasonable for running Shor's Algorithm at a reasonably large elliptic curve key ?
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 ....
Thank you. an actuallly intelligent comment from an actual PhD.
@@peacefulexistence_ hello dunning, have you met my friend, krueger?
@@NN-rs1ny and it's the same for nearly every emerging tech for the last couple thousands years....
hype a technology, >raise money from investors, >go public > get funding from the government > pay yourself and friends millions > close company > retire rich af
Exactly! So sick of this BS!
Yup. It has been going on for a long time. And especially in our half fake economy, it continues.
Well China is trying to create their own quantum computer, so the boomer politicians are gonna dump money into research and development just for the fact that they hate China 😂
Here’s hoping they can squeeze “contribute to society” somewhere in there
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.
Thanks for that. I have looked into them too and can't see a single use for them.
They need government contracts and funding. They won't be useful or profitable for normal people
..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.
"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.
@@sirsneakybeakyThe networks which were combined to create the internet were useful individually. Also ARPANET was restricted to noncommercial use. Even in hindsight it wasn't a good VC investment.
I am a time traveller from 2124. Quantum computers are finally mature, and have revolutionized humanity by mining more bitcoins.
Thought it would've enabled time travel, but I guess not.
But what about NFT apes? Have quantum computers finally made them useful or are they still bored?
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
No need, more efficient to just bruteforcing those 12-15 word wallet seed to automagically own all the available coin. @@UCjNrKLyRJI-abFA8qiNo92Q
@@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.
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!
Shut up and take my money
I’m sure we could make a lot of dough together
Just call it iBake and you'll be rich in no time.
Instead, just focus on turning your qubits into dough. That appears to be a lot easier.
Voooh keep on it !
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.
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"
@@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."
No, it is very much a hoax, although in truth it emerged from a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of quantum mechanics. In short, wave-function collapse is a myth (and no, it has never been verified). The probability-density functions are STATISTICAL in nature, not physical/actual. The "Copenhagen Interpretation" however chose to construe them as such, and as a result the idea came about to extend it to what was later dubbed "entanglement", which they then attempted to "verify" by looking at the up/down spin of electrons. But it really proves absolutely nothing because spinors MUST obey the mathematical (symmetry) rules of Lie algebras anyway and hence there is no entanglement per-se but rather a loose STATISTICAL relationship between the (wave functions of) two particles (which was already obvious). And that is why we do not have functioning quantum computers today. Because it rests on a false assumption (which was, by the way, the very subject of Schrödinger famous "Is the cat dead or alive?" thought experiment, a paper which Einstein himself publicly advocated).
@@FranzBiscuit sorry, you are confusing a lot of things - start learning the subject again, from the very beginning
@@FranzBiscuit That just doesn't make any sense. Whether quantum computers work doesn't in any way rely on the Copenhagen interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation is, after all, just an interpretation of a theory. It's not a theory onto itself and you don't need to make predictions.
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.
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.
@@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
I don't think you truly understand the problem. It's not a matter of useful vs useless. It's a matter of being achievable. All the cases you presented (other than quantum) were clearly achievable. Quantum computing? Not so much.
No. This is the Economic industrial complex making sure you don't pay attention to the Technology so you won't understand you'll be able to use quantum computing in your home and without THEM charging you for usage and subscription to the Q.C. Server only they and a few others have the money to "provide".
This is why I really like this channel. You make really interesting videos that no one else does. I don't think I've ever seen another video like this. Quantum computing is one of those things no one criticizes.
It would be good if no-one else does videos like this, because it conflates the issue of "will quantum computing be useful" with "are their grifters surrounding an immature but promising technology".
It's not exactly clickbait, but it's misleading.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
@@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.
My portfolio is diversified; quantum computing, graphine, robotaxis…
Hahaha
NFT
Nuclear fusion!!!!
Robot Axis?
What about teleportation ?
Being possible and being useful are two different thing.
ikr like living forever. Sure it is possible but if everyone did it that would be very bad.
just because you can, doesn’t mean you should 😅
Where is you pfp from it looks really cool
Like folding LCDs...
Any tech that significantly speeds up computing is useful by definition. Just remains to be seen if it will be cost effective.
Only a month later and what is probably the main technical hurdle this video discussed, error correction, is purported to have been overcome. Scaling will still present issues no doubt, but perhaps is this the last fundamental uncertainty we had about the viability of quantum computing? Does this accomplishment, if it holds, sway your outlook?
"purported" being the key word here
@TheChzoronzon okay, I don't know why you felt the need to point that out when I even reinforced the idea that this was a tentative discovery when I said "if it holds". All scientific claims should be held in the appropriate mindset until they're verified and peer reviewed. I thought I was definitely giving this accomplishment that space with what I said and yet you chose not to answer the question. And as far as claims go from the things I've seen regarding this, I believe it has a high probability of proving correct. In other words this is not some flimsy, theoretical claim, it was theorized and then the experiment was performed so barring some major error this is likely to be confirmed. As such I ask you again does that sway your outlook?
@@HughCraneII Because experience has taught me to be particularly sceptic in this subject, that's why
Calm your tits, bro :D
I did my PhD on experimental quantum information, and I can confidently say that most people within the field roll their eyes at science journalism coverage of quantum computing. This video is not wrong about the fact that there are a lot of grifters, who promise the world and deliver nothing. The backlash will definitely come, and I would not be surprised if investors start pulling out soon (for this reason I've avoided working for any of these companies). At the same time, there is true promise to the technology, and if someone manages to build a fault-tolerant, useful quantum computer, I believe that it will be one of the greatest technological achievements of mankind, because it is truly an immense challenge. However, people need to be more honest about the current state of the technology, its proven applications and future timelines, and at the same time science media needs to stop amplifying the voices of people who stand to gain materially from hyping the technology.
The probability of a quantum computer getting the correct answer will forever remain approximately the same as a SWAG - the SWAG being cheaper, of course.
Once the hardware works then you have to write the program.
@@internetpointsbank So, I'll know it works when they steal my bitcoin wallet? Because let's face it, that's the only real-world example of the need for a working quantum computer.
Call anything quantum and it's 'better than sex'!!
The real genius is the guy who named it 'quantum computing'. It just sounds so damn cool, who wouldn't want to be involved?
Name is based on Quantum Physics. Even Einstein went to his grave not believing Quantum Physics.
@@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.
@@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.
@@monkqp Einstein was likely correct. If there is no causation at the quantum level, then 'reality' may not exist in any meaningful way.
@@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.
So, now I'm a quantum computer? I can't do anything useful either. And I'm rarely coherent.
Too bad that won't get you a billion dollars though.
Completely understand. Personally I hate being in simultaneous states until I’m observed
I’ll invest 23 billion $ in you.
From a physics viewpoint, yes you are 😊
@@killerrabbit4448 I'm a cheap date.
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.
How can you talk so much but say so little?
@@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.
@@samsonsoturian6013 Cause they're actually explaining instead of making a 30 seconds tiktok short?
Seemed quite an informative comment to me.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
Grant chasing 101.
The hoax part is those 3-5 years till "imminent breakthrough" promised again and again, not the overall concept
It's in a superposition between "needs to cheat to factor 21" and "may do some calcs faster in theory".
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.
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.
@@perfectallycromulentthat is just the process of doing research bud
@@perfectallycromulent I'm saying if you took marketing material at face value then you're a fool.
@@perfectallycromulentit's not amoral if it's for science!
@@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.
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.
The squares were both red and blue until u hopped on them
Well, that dates you, doesn't it?
@@samsonsoturian6013 Pfffft. Get in line
@@samsonsoturian6013 no
@@samsonsoturian6013 he could be 40,41 or 141. You never know
Quantum computing should still be in the lab and receiving private or government funding, instead of going public like they have a deliverable product.
Nah, there is better use of taxpayer money than this clown tech
Another key point about RSA is that we try to minimize how often we use it. PK encryption is slow.
We use it to negotiate shared symmetric keys that are basically unguessable. We'll use those keys for a bit, then negotiate new ones.
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
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.
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.
Solution: Human Trials.
The difficulty is finding an economic incentive to cure cancer, when treating the disease is much more lucrative.
@@laz0rbra1n It will be up to rogue researchers to find cancer cures.
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
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.
Thought fusion energy was. “Fusion will be ready in 20 years” - they’ve been saying that for decades.
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
ya know, im not dillusional, im dissalusioned.
you know, im something of a delusion person myself.
There's still huge opportunities in Silicon Valley. Get into auto glass replacement and sidewalk feces removal. Absolutely booming right now.
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.
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.
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.
I think the term is actually superposition. Back to school for you.
Quantum computing is one of those technologies that's always "just a few years away," like cold fusion, fuel cell cars, or nanobots.
And All what we ever wanted was Flying Cars!
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 $15,000 in fuel credit. Every car company bar them and BMW and Honda has abandoned HFCVs because battery electric vehicles are cheaper to buy, cheaper to refuel, and can be "refueled" at home.
The nanobot dream of self-replicating robots recursively assembling smaller versions of themselves (I remember Zyvex in 1997) ran into hard physical problems of stiction and power supply. But micro-machining, 3-D mechanical lithography, and scanning tunneling microscopes that can move single atoms are all commercially available, and other researchers realized that DNA already precisely assembles molecules and are repurposing it. Watch Veritasium's video on the world's smallest Nerf gun. The field changed and developed in all these different directions.
The hype cycle is common to many new technologies, but the progress of each technology is very different. Wall Street Millennial has a tiresome propensity to fit every technology story into the same narrative.
Hey, go harvest some tiberian. I didn't pay you to comment here.
@@skierpage *mark rober's video, but yes
cold fusion is not ‘just a few years away’ it was a hoax. You’re thinking of fusion.
The quantum computer ending free will idea is just the plot of that show ‘DEVS’ 17:34
Fusion power plants are always 30 years in future.
I hate this relatively new trend when money, marketing and hype take over innovations in technology and reduce them to scams that worsen preexisting products or make new useless barely functional products. It happened with Blockchains it happened with Quantum Computing and now it's happening with AI.
It's not relatively new. Companies hyping their potential to raise money is as old as can be. And the hype cycle _doesn't_ reduce the technology to "scams", W$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.
@@skierpage Millions of people are also paying for porn so that's not a good way of measuring usefulness.
@@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.
Blockchains never had an usecase,they were destined to be scam.
oyvey
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...
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
rsa keys are used not to encrypt bulk data as in the example here: 09:09 but instead its used for key exchange of aes keys that actually encrypt the data since both alice and bob have the same symmetric key.
ECDHE is by far the most common key exchange. Forward secrecy / no single encryption key property of DH makes it superior to RSA. Also ROBOT attack made fun things to RSA some years back. You will get a bad test score on SSLabs TLS tester if you only support RSA. Basically law enforcement and NSA loves people still using RSA key exchange, since a single break (such as stealing your key) deciphers all your past coms.
Hows this aging with Willow?
Hasn't changed anything. You just got duped by the lastest "breakthrough"
@dirtydard4870 👍
@@dirtydard4870 yet you have no argument other than "muh marketing". Go into depth on how it's BS lmfao.
I've been reading about quantum computers since 1998. It was all the hype. Compare that with cable internet, Visual C++, Unreal Engine, stuff that just showed up one day and took over the world. Quantum computing seems to be going the way of steampunk, and maybe someday there will be Quantumpunk.
Rick and Morty is quantum-punk. Its premise is that all information in the universe already exists, and all it takes is a mind that can see all realities in all dimensions to find the correct combination of where and when, and a portal gun to get you there. Instead of baking a pizza, it tells you that it is more efficient to find a parallel universe where pizza is the dominant life-form on earth, and travel there.
@justifiably_stupid4998 multiverse storylines are fun. Unfortunately it seems the sciences think this kind of thinking is somehow useful. It seems far more religious than anything.
@EricJacobusOfficial yep. This is quantum computing in a nutshell. Instead of learning the principles behind making food, quantum assumes it is faster to reverse engineer food into its atomic components and create a reality where those components combined into the food we already wanted. Quantum is not capable of discovering any new information because it operates on the assumption that there is no such thing as new information.
That IONQ CEO sounds like he owns a TV repair shop in 1979 and found a copy of Popular Mechanics “Wave Of The Future” issue near his toilet.
I am a physics professor. This is the best explanation I've found about quantum computing and why it is way over hyped. Thank you!
The very basis of "Quatum" is "Uncertainty", thus, the probability for errors and the error correction rate will always be a huge problem and the outcomes will still be up for questioning because the means by which the quantum computer came up with its result will be nearly impossible to verify due to possible probabilities and probable possibilities.
"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.
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.
@@skierpage A glaring example right in the video: Zapata. 20:53.
@@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.
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”
@@skierpage Which QC companies are producing actual quantum computers that are scalable? If the cost of scalability is a large power of 10 per bit, then QC will never ever be useful, and that's assuming it actually works - which is in doubt.
That moment you realize the computer from hitchhikers was scary accurate
I built a quantum computer in my basement. It looks like a black box, and it does nothing, but one day it will change the world. The price for this marvel of technology: a mere $1 billion. That's right, for only 1 billion dollars, I will sell you this computer that will likely generate you unlimited sums of money in the future.
I remember back in the mid 00's I was reading a Wired article that said quantum computers were 5-6 years away.
at 3:33 you have a mistake because yes number of states depends on 2^bits, but that is not the reason why you need less qbits then bits
simply because even the number of states a normal computer can represent increases as 2^bit
Technological unicorn : Fusion powered quantum computer.
My hat's off to you sir! You are the first person who has ever accurately quantified the equation x = 1/infinity minus 2/infinity. Well done! LOL
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.
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".
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.
... 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.
As a layman on this subject, it seems that you need to have determinancy just to enter your algorithm and start data to do anything useful apart from generate random numbers. I can understand that running a programme several times to get a probability answer might work for some applications, but how do you know if you are starting these runs from the same place if the qubits could be anything? How do you even load the algorithm and make it stay the same as when you loaded it?
Dynamic ram and magnetic core memory used to " destroy" its own contents when read and had to be refreshed, but at least you knew what it was supposed to be. If the qubit could be anything, then you dont know whether you are restoring the correct information.
I may be missing something here, but maybe thats why zapata went bust?
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.
Quantum computing is the nowadays equivalent of cold fusion!
Reminds me of how string theorists have been hoaxing huge amounts of money by pretending they're close to a breakthrough for 30 years
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.
@@skierpageI don't men that sounds too much like religion to me " the messiah will come back to earth we just have to wait "
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.
@@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.
@@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.
“An idiot admires complexity, a genius admires simplicity, a physicist tries to make it simple, for an idiot anything the more complicated it is the more he will admire it, if you make something so clusterfcked he can't understand it he's gonna think you're a god cause you made it so complicated nobody can understand it. That's how they write journals in Academics, they try to make it so complicated people think you're a genius”
― Terry Davis, Creator of Temple OS
Some quantum computing firms ditched all QC work pivoting to AI right when chatgpt was released... what does this tell you??
10:34 where's the link to the Veritasium video?
Quantum computing: where the chances of success are both infinitely high and impossibly low-depending on which state you measure it in.
The military will be the first to make a breakthrough in the quantum field, like they have historically in all technology fields
The military already has the solution for quantum computing. It's called "Fire For Effect".
@ lol well put
“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.”
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”
Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977
“Apple is already dead.”
Nathan Myhrvold, former Microsoft CTO, 1997
Yes, add this video to the list of doubters' comments that didn't age well.
People can be wrong. OK. That was never in doubt. The question is, who is wrong and why? Will it be this video, or the people who say that quantum computing will cure cancer despite not being able to do anything other than generate 1s and 0s in a chaotically unpredictable state?
This is a good video. Quantum computing is surrounded by massive amounts of unrealistic hype, and I believe that many investors will be sorely disappointed. I suggest that all these "investors" go back to college and take some courses in quantum mechanics. After that, do some experiments where slight disturbances can kill the results. After that, take some basic business courses. And after you have done all that, please report what you have found. I predict that this will cool your unrealistic enthusiasm.
Forget full quantum computing. Can we use it to communicate yet?
Like, faster than light Morris code?
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.
So should I cash out now? These main qc stocks have been peaking and I made some good buys when they were at low points 2 years ago
Can quantum computer run Crysis?
It can and it cannot at the same time.
🥁
It can't even run Doom. Let that sink in.
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.
Which cell phone was made in the 60s?
For rockets you have to start way back from fireworks in China.
No, there is no practical difference between a hang glider and a fighter jet. There is a LOT of difference between a traditional computer and a QC. For example, we have traditional computers all around us, but only schrodinger's cat can actually speak to the problem of quantum computers. And of course, if you don't feed the cat, that equation resolves to zero over time.
As someone who actually works in the field, I have never found a more accurate video on qc than this. No bs, no hype and exaggeration. QC is an extreme fun field to work on but no more than that. You can appreciate the amount of physics and skillset needed to only grasp some of the basic concepts of QC but the pratical implications are REALLY far away
Thank you for this video. Masters in physics but never got around knowing what this was. Good explanation.
Quantum computers now are like classical computers 100 years ago. The size of a room, incredibly difficult to program, expensive, niche, kinda just bad all around. You can imagine all the same points in this video being made for classical computers, right down to the "classical computers do it better" being replaced with "human operators do it better"
We have no way of knowing whether quantum computers will end up being like classical computers, or end up being one of those failed niche technologies. It all depends on breakthroughs. Each one could be just around the corner or 100 years out, and we don't even know how many we need. So everyone is banking on it being soon, because they really don't want to miss out on another "computers"
No, they're not. No matter how large the room, you're still not going to get a QC that works any better than a comparably sized supercomputer.
You are assuming that we are going to find amazing ways to make quantum computers much cheaper, like the jump from vacuum tubes to transistors to integrated circuits, but it isn't at all clear at this point that advancement will happen. Given how much R&D has already been poured into quantum computers, I don't think that we are going to get those kinds of break-throughs in quantum computing any time soon, because we should have already seen them after 25 years of working on the tech.
Hellooooooo willow
Nvidia suddenly become the lesser chip manufacturer 😢
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.
Which of these things were done faster than using a classical compute (CPU/GPU) I can rent in the cloud?
@Sean-sk3nq with the exception of Quantum Machine Learning and VQA, none of these are AI related.
Btw why are you even talking about AI? We are discussing Quantum Computers.
Moreover, everything can be effectively reduced to "simple computing" (as you said). In fact, my old Nokia 3301 can do the exact same calculations as a supercomputer, but it would take much longer and would be absurdly more inefficient. It would make it humanly impractical.
You can try making a supercomputer do the exact same tasks as a Quantum Computer, but it will simply be insanely inefficient and would take infinitely longer
As an analog computer, with the same future as nuclear fusion
I don't know if it's true but I heard that the quantum oracle in quantum computers is implemented using classical logic. If so, that seems suspicious to me. Some other things I have doubts about are nuclear fusion reactors and protein folding simulations. No doubt the protein folding simulations achieve accurate results, but what initial conditions do they use?
Protein folding only works because massive amounts of donated computer time is thrown at the problem.
@@Quakeboy02 But isn't the folding process very sensitive to the initial condition of the unfolded protein? There are zillions of possible folded shapes, and in a nonlinear system like that the tiniest changes in initial condition will produce vastly different folded shapes.
@@Anders01 You need to get out more. Google "Folding@home"
@@Anders01 Google "Folding@home". It's a distributed computing system dedicated to folding proteins. In a distributed computing system, the master computer dispenses slices of a puzzle to volunteer computers which then solve that slice, send the solution to the master, and ask for more work. If your project is well defined and can be broken into many small parts, but takes a lot of computing power, a distributed computing system is what you need. And there are a lot of volunteers who give away free time on their home computer(s) to help solve various problems. "Boinc" (another distributed computing project) used to distribute BTC mining (as well as other projects) and share fractional BTC for coins found, but they stopped that some time ago.
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.
Sure but we don't judge things by what they will be. And currently quantum computers haven't done anything. Therefore they're nothing.
WHEN they exist, they can being to argue for themselves not being a scam.
Until then it's all one gigantic "it's gonna happen into the future, trust me bro" circle jerk
@ that’s just false. We judge things by what they will be all the time. When you work you get paid, usually not the same moment but in the future, at the end of the month or something. Do you say that it is useless to you because you haven’t been paid yet? No. We don’t stop all research on new technologies because the specific technology doesn’t work yet, well that’s why we’re researching, to make it work.
When talking about possible new technologies, the questions are as following: are there real benefits to the technology once developed and if so how big? Is the technology even feasible? What is the presumptive timeline and expense needed? For quantum computers all I can say is that while maybe overhyped it really is useful, not just in theory. It is in principle feasible as we already demonstrated the technology “in small”. How fast and expensive will it be to get to a useful scale? I don’t know, ask physicists.
But that puts it already above other overhyped technologies and I’d say warrants investment. Maybe less money than what the hype pushed into this. Probably most companies investigating it won’t go no where. That is to be expected. Investors better treat it as high risk.
@martinschlegel1823 if you want to work for a HOPE of getting paid, that's on you. The rest of us have it as a guarantee. LoL
Sounds like you've never had a real job in your life lol
@@enriquecabrera2137 Well, yeah, high risk investments aren't guaranteed payment. That is how it is. As long as you as an investor know what you're into that's ok.
And yes, you absolutely get the jist of it: nothing in the future is 100% asured. But wether it's a scam or not depends on how likely you think there is a success. Working for pay is usually something where you're decently sure you'll get payed even though it's in the future. High risk investments have less of a chance of paying back but if they do might multiply the investment by a significant factor.
We are investing all the time in things we don't know will be successfull, in our private lives just as much as the big banks etc. in finance.
To find the smallest element in a list, each element must be inspected. If you double the size of the list, then it will take double the time. Quantum mechanics can't beat this, unless the computer has a magical knowledge of the future. -I think a quantum computer could be used like an analog computer. But analog computers are already cheap and easy to make. I even made one once. For example, you can make an analog computer that uses op amps, resistors and capacitors to solve a differential equation. And this costs a couple of dollars. (And you need an oscilloscope to observe the input and output.) But if quantum computers can only be used like an analog computer, then quantum computers will be the world's most overpriced and overhyped computers of all time.
So it will never be used for home computing but it MIGHT be used for generating random numbers or cracking encryption?
Any claims about technology or the future being made in 2013 can automatically be dismissed. It was a time of pie in the sky optimism in the face of all reality
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.
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!?!
@@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.
@@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
@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.
The technology isn't lacking. It's completely missing. If there was actual technology, it would be scalable. It's not.
“Of what use is a newborn baby?”
- Benjamin Franklin
Cringe
To identify the most annoying guys in your friends group.
Well, we know what a baby will become in time. I think there’s a difference, although I support the spirit of this sentiment.
Don't tell that to Diddy and friends
To test someones character
Much of what is said here is a valid concern, many of which I share as a cynic towards quantum computing.
However, you ought to ask yourself what else you would be investing in. Hard technology, from aerospace to semiconductors to drug engineering has ground to a halt since the 80's, and quantum mechanics is the barrier.
The current dogma that quantum computers are the most likely and efficient cure is probably nonsense, but what else are you going to do? What else will you invest in? "AI" is an even more idiotic bubble, although like quantum computing, I would re-frame it as a pie-in-the-sky suppository capsule to sell something more mundane or esoteric and important to the public, politicians, and business leaders who otherwise would not appreciate the merits of what is really being pursued.
"Machine learning" is a noxious buzzword for "Statistical modeling and optimization". It has turned every company into a tech company, even if their core product is pizza. This will ultimately accelerate the economy, even if C-3PO style androids are still a century away.
Likewise with quantum computing, whose real objective is probably to stimulate progress in control, engineering, and physics of superconductors, semiconductor nanostructures, and atoms.
The most valuable fundamental research is stimulated by technology, so one may as well speculate some absurd technology to stimulate the fundamentals, from which the real technology will eventually emerge.
*Honestly those have classic scam warning signs, such as the Gold plating and so on, and the “emperor’s new clothes” style “too complicated to explain to investors” tactic is also a warning sign.*
The thumb nail along with the title of this video is a work of art. lol
LMAO came back to this once I saw the new chip. This aged terribly.
You saw the "new chip" do what?
@@a46475 The real question is what can't it do.
I normally like your not quite outsider prospective, but I think you missed the mark here by thinking too small. Ever heard of nuclear magnetic resonance? That niche measurement technological analytical and organic chemistry that started in the 1930s? That had little to no practical effect at first?
How about magnetic resonance imaging? That first debuted in the late 1970s based entirely on NMR. Would you say that had it hasn't changed the world? That because it requires the magnetics to be cooled to superconductivity they are impractical? (Running out of helium is a problem, yes)
What about Moore's law? And how that has powered our modern tech revolution? What are we going to do when we literally can't physically make small enough components to keep up that march of progress?
Quantum computing didn't get plucked out of the air - it was the best solution people looking 40+ years out could find to address the physical limitations of classical computer chips.
But NMR only ever depended on scaling up processes that were already achieved. QC? It's nothing more than snake oil peddled as a pipe dream.
My mother caught me manipulating my qbits and said so many observations would make me go blind 😮
1 clap
😐😑
The real function of Quantum Computers is to raise investment.
I don't disagree. On the contrary, I quite enjoyed hearing you openly calling it a hoax.
On the other hand, I'm old enough to remember when lasers were best known as "a solution in search of a problem". Obviously, lasers did eventually find enough problems to make the technology very valuable. So, it can happen.
As a PhD student in computer architecture who works directly with QC researchers (none of whom are paid remotely as well as folks in industry are)- you dont understand what you're talking about, not remotely.
Care to explain why? I'm genuinely curious.
After 20 years, we are still stuck at Shor's algorithm. No signs of possible 10k qbits for gerneral quantum algorithm. BTW, I have got my PhD for 10 years. My MS thesis is quatum algorithm. lol.
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.
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
The difference with qubits is that they can simultaneously represent many values, and if you apply a quantum function to that state, it is simultaneously applied to all of those values. To be more precise, with n qubits, one can create an entangled state where any n bit value is an equally likely result of a quantum measurement of those qubits’ state. If one applies an n-bit function to that state before measuring (stored in ancillary bits for q reasons), the new state is basically a table for the entire function, with every possible n-bit input matched with its corresponding function output. Now, this table is behind the veil of quantum weirdness, so that table is not visible to us. You can only roll the dice, which lets you see one entry of that table chosen at random. It’s amazing that even with all these limitations, that this could still be useful, but it is. Consider Grover’s algorithm, with allows you to search an unsorted list of length N is sqrt(N) time. It creates a quantum state that stores this list, where probability of drawing the desired list entry is maximized. It only uses log(N) qubits (I forget, could be like 2*log(N)), but the final state before measurement “sees” the entire list in a sense and favors the desired search item. The best that a classical computer could do is search the unsorted list one entry at a time.
Except that QCs are touted as encryption breakers, which is actually a deterministic outcome. If the output of QCs is not deterministic, then they have no possible utility.
@@Quakeboy02 If I throw a deck of cards in the air and ask you to search for the Jack of Spades, you would also probably find it in a non-determistic way. Also, if it's dark, maybe you might pick up the King of Spades and then realize it's wrong. A quantum computer can do the same thing. It can error correct, just like a non-determinstic human like you. However, it needs an algorithm that requires minimal error correction or else it'll be too inefficient.
@@texchu8331 That's not my understanding of how QC "works". What my meager mind understands is that a qubit is all things at one time, and then somehow the function "collapses" and the correct answer is suddenly there. There is no error correction, because it's not an iterative process. It's not a guess because it can only collapse to the correct solution. I can sort of understand that if I have a collection of all possible answers as they relate to the possible inputs. What I don't understand is how it can possibly apply to code-breaking where you don't have (and cannot have) a sample correct answer for any of the possible inputs. To me, that's just clown talk. And so far, it's clown talk in the quantum world. Come back to me when you have the answer to br549.
this aged like ice cream on a hot summer day and totally got wrecked 🤣🤣🤣
Whay email do I contact to cancel my subscription to the website?
Expensive noise machines, but they have a use when they get them working
3:17 what are you trying to say here? regular bits on a computer also scale exactly like this.
no they don't. the key phrase here is _at the same time_ . if you have two bits you can process (0,0), (0,1) (1,0 ) (1,1) only sequentially. here, you can process them _simultaneously_ .
Not even a month and proven wrong by Willow. The entire point of the video, error correction, is largely solved. Turns out when you thought we need 'orders of magnitude more chips', you were no different from those who thought the solution to carry more load is more horses. The physics problem is quickly giving way to the engineering problem, and with the pace of things, I don't expect it to be long. As for practical uses, the test you describe as useless is anything but. Quantum functionalities will work that way, and future computing will be fine tuned for that. Can see a 1950s you dismissing the digital computer because it's not doing the same thing as the paper punch machines. As for progress, it's anything but linear. Once the physics is fully solved, we'll see decades of progress in months. As for uses, I think we have enough quotes of people decades ago mocking the computer. Quantum promises the ultimate sci-fi world. I think we can be a little bit more patient. Remember to watch ads to fund both Google's R&D and Wall Street Millennial's skeptism
You bought the marketing
TLDR: quantum computers can’t do anything useful.
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.
they can find prime factors for large numbers faster (theoretically, when they strong enough)
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.
@@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
I wonder if it could make TLDRs without having to search for them in the comments.
Great analysis, thank you! Could you help me with something unrelated: I have a SafePal wallet with USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How should I go about transferring them to Binance?
My gut feeling is that quantum decoherence makes it as hard to add effective qbits to quantum computers as it is to increase the performance of classical computers. So quantum computers will remain behind classical computers forever.
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.
Adjacent to Obhamas Presedential Library.
@chebrubin I think you mean Trump and Biden library. I am all the way from South carolina.
The particle acceleration device in texas... there would be a use for it...
This video aged like 3 day sun bathed dog poo in the grass.