• baggachipz@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    requires extremely complex and expensive materials, tools and physical conditions.

    Counterpoint: they said the same thing when a computer was made of vacuum tubes and took up an entire room to add two digits.

    • kutt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Yeah but you have to consider one other thing. Before creating classical computers, we already had theorized them, we had algorithms etc. We knew why we were creating them.

      For QC, the pace of hardware development is faster than our ability to create algorithms. It’s very similar to what’s happening with the AI bubble currently, we’re investing heavily in a new technology because it looks cool to investors, but we don’t even have enough algorithms to run on it. It’s just a shit ton of marketing…

      • baggachipz@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Yeah, understood. I was just saying that because it doesn’t seem technically possible now, don’t discount that it could be in the future. Whether it would be useful, that’s another debate. But I have a hard time believing it has practical uses. If it does though, the innovation will be rapid like the shift to silicon transistors (assuming it is even possible).

        • kutt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Oh I’m not saying it is technically impossible, it’s the opposite actually, it’s developing extremely fast. And usefulness and having QCs in our homes aren’t that far apart to be honest. Why would John Doe have a QC at home if he’s not trying to create a new medication, or simulate a molecule? Probably for the same reasons he doesn’t have an MRI machine in his living room :)