We argue that quantum computing underwent an inflection point circa 2017. Long promised funding materialised which prompted public and private investments around the world. ...Note that the big advance of 2017 was in funding, not technological progress.
We argue that the next inflection point would occur around when practical problems will be first solved by quantum computers. We anticipate that by 2050 this would have become commonplace, were the world would still be adjusting to the possibilities brought by quantum computers.
A turning point in the development of quantum computation appears around 2017. At this point, several long-promised large funding programs began such as the European Quantum Flagship and the American National Quantum Initiative Act (this happened around the world and was in the Billions of USD). Most national investments appear to keep a country compet- itive in technological development. There are many initiatives around the world adding up to more than 20 billion USD committed public funding. In addition, many private companies also invested dramatically around this time. MeanWe have to wait a long time for the next milestone.
When will we see another inflection point? It’s hard to tell. The saying goes that knowl- edge begets knowledge. And so development always seems to go increasingly faster. But the next jump might have to wait until practical problems of commercial value are regularly solved. This should take place perhaps even around 2050.I reported here in 2019 that progress was doubly exponential. If that were true, we would already see commercial value. Instead we have to wait 28 more years.
I don't believe it. We will not see those commercial applications. I also don't believe that it will get billions in funding for three decades without commerical payoff.
My prediction is that in about ten years, everyone will be complaining that quantum computing failed because the funding dried up.
Quantum computing is basically nuclear fusion in an IT flavor. It is this glorious promise of unending benefit that is always just around the corner (ALWAYS 10 to 50 years away) if they could just get more of someone else's money to continue their highbrow grifting. Just imagine Alan Turing pulling this nonsense without any tangible results when he was building his Enigma code breaking machine, and later his Automatic Computing Engine computer.ReplyDelete
1. Thanks for pointing out the paper.
2. I have ``published'' the draft version of my first conference paper on my new approach to QM (together with the Beamer slides), at my personal blog as also at iMechanica. Am dropping this note, so you know.
In response to Dr. Ashutosh Joglekar's following comment:
I can say this much:
He, an otherwise normal human being, is being full bull-shit here. And thereby exhibiting his characteristic feature when pushed to take sides in reference to someone born in the same country where he was, in this life-time.
I am different. You can test me, in case, you haven't.
[PS: The last time I mentioned ``tour de force'' was when I was applying for my PhD admission at COEP; the mention didn't make a dent one way or the other; but my SoP, nevertheless, did refer to a review about Helmholtz' paper; I think I gathered it from Encl. Brit., CD ed., c. 2000.]
[PPS: I sure will post this at my blog. Give me a bit of a time, that's all...]
And, I will sure take some parts of this comment back, and even consider issuing amends, if this book does *not* explain the topics which the blurb says it does, by making reference to ``multiverse''.Delete
Tell you what, Roger,ReplyDelete
Both Peter Woit and Scott Aaronson are worthless folks. Also, Peter Shor.
Take it from me. On Thursday the 4th August in the year of 2022, you shall see the evidence for the worthlessness, in the moral terms, for all the three. [I predict.]
OK. Scott is slightly better. (He did run my comment at his blog, though it was too late, and I had to send an email to him with a screenshot attached, saying that his mechanism wasn't verifying my email ID despite my clicking the link provided. ... On second thoughts: He is still young, and could actually get better, you know....)Delete
But no, Peter Shor doesn't deserve a Nobel in Physics or Chemistry.
And, Peter Woit would be better employed in the AICTE office, New Delhi, India, under the umbrella cover of Vinay and Anil Sahasrabudhe of Hubli/Dharward, with an appointment with immediate effect in the Savitribai Phule Pune University, with a special grant of Rs. 20 crores or more than the most funded professor from IISER Physics Department under Sunil Mukhi. They all would love Woit. SPPU could emply him in their Commerce faculty too, just in case Physics is too full.
2 out of 3 ain't all that bad, is it? [I am going to post at my blog what I wrote at Woit's blog and he didn't run. I mean, my posting after I had already published my iqWaves paper, that is. Very AICTE/Brahmin/UGC/SPPU/Indian-like, this action on his part was.]
But yes, Woit may run Shor's comments, but still, Shor doesn't deserve a Nobel in Physics or Chemistry. Not even in Medicine. He might stand a chance in Economics or Peace though. (However, I wouldn't wish the last on him.) But then, of course, so even Woit could qualify for either. ... What do you think?
Now the comment is online, OK? Here:
By the way, interesting article on Tom's Hardware. Remember what I previously said about what a racket the 'quantum supremacy' market was, and how a team (probably out of China) would unseat the mega expensive computer claiming to be the only one capable of solving their 1000 year plus encryption problems?ReplyDelete
Well, damn. A 10000 year problem solved in 15 hours by off the shelf GPUs. So much for Quantum supremacy.
Thanks for the link. It says that Google team paper claimed a classical computer would take 10,000 years. It turned out to be 12 seconds.ReplyDelete