Disclaimer: I'm near the end of a PhD in experimental quantum computing.
I'm not sure what he means very little progress... we're entangling over long distances, we're doing practical error correction, we're reaching really long coherence times. More importantly, we've seen exponential progress in coherence times over time. Moore's law-like progress. Quantum computing has also had the side benefit of generating obviously practical results like ultra wide bandwidth, high dynamic range quantum limited amplifiers, and debatably practical but stunning fundamental results like reversing a quantum jump in real time by feedback. This is all recent. Quantum computing research has exploded in the last 10 years. The blog post just sounds like some dude that doesn't really understand physics, didn't do a thorough literature search, didn't really even look at recent news articles, who pats himself on the back for being a real practical business guy instead of a Quantum Physics PhD, because some Quantum Physics PhD served him food or something and thus they must all be floundering. He then goes on to poorly explain why quantum computing is really really hard and therefore we shouldn't be spending money on it. Poorly I say because he can't even seem to explain properly one of MANY proposed implementations of a quantum computer. One that isn't even particularly popular anymore. I really think he just woke up angry and wrote this.
Nearly having finished a PhD in quantum computing, I wouldn't say the skills I'm most proud of I picked up are my understanding of quantum mechanics... I'm now an expert in low noise microwave electronics, high speed feedback control, cryogenics. Some of which are practically useful skills, some of which are highly applicable towards better understanding of the natural world in ways that I think the author would even agree are worthwhile. So no, my life hasn't been wasted and my career hasn't been ruined.
"my life hasn't been wasted and my career hasn't been ruined"
Talk to me in 10 years when you're not bringing me a steak for a living.
FWIIW I went to a Gordon conference on this in the 90s, and literally, the capabilities of quantum computers have not changed since then. Zero. None. There has been no "Moore's law like progress." There hasn't been any! That's the point! There's been more progress in interstellar space flight than quantum computing (I dunno, White-Juday is at least a good try), but at least warp drive creators aren't trying to convince people like you to ruin your lives.
Agreed. Seems like the author had enough education on the subject to be able to form an opinion that sounds credible enough, but lacked the capability to hammer the point home.
Sure, many of the points made are valid - work is still ongoing. Progress however, has been staggering. Ignore the whole quantum computer aspect, and you still have condenser matter, nanomanufacturing, optics, material science, modelling, dilution refrigeration, metrology and many other fields that directly benefit from the funding that's going into quantum computing at the moment.
In the spirit of charity I wish there were a version of this post that didn’t seem like it was written after injecting some strange cocktail of anabolic steroids and cocaine.
Maybe there are some good or at least interestingly wrong arguments but I find myself incapable of looking past the rhetoric.
Right, much like discussing political maters, when discussing important things; compassion and easily digestible chunks of information go farther. It's OK to be passionate and certainly OK to call things out, but for the most part I think the only people who are able to look past the rhetoric are people who already agree with its position.
Personally, I'm all for more progress on quantum information science topics, but I think it will be better for the field if we rein in some of the claims about the potential for the technology, and the timeframe when it will become practical.
One glaring fact in support of the original post is that even the companies who make quantum computers don't claim that they are useful for solving any real problems. The problems that they can "solve" have to be constructed to fit within the limits of the machine.
In other words, quantum computers are less powerful than Turing machines which can solve any problem that any computer can ever solve -- including one's we haven't seen yet.
Assuming everything he says is 100% true. Why can’t some people just work on things that interest them because they interest them? Why does everything need to be “useful” (as in useful right here right now)? Okay resource is finite and has to be allocated. But so what? What’s the point of science and technology if not to enable others to have a more meaningful life? For some, that meaning is in exploring “useless” problems. Let the people who want to make better classical computers do so. Let people who want to study quantum computers do so. I can assure you that the number of people who study/work on quantum computers is so low that convincing all of them to drop their work and do something more “practical” will not make the world a better place.
Everything I said is 100% true. Citation: nobody has found an error yet.
I think it would be great if people took this up as a hobby. I don't even mind wasting VC on stuff like this, and said so. I object to researchers selling this to young scientists as a potential career. It's not! It is a glass bead game, and acting like it isn't is the moral equivalent of fraud.
I normally go through HN comments before I decide to read the article. And so I decided to read it indeed to see how it could possibly be this bad. Wow! Just imagine how much different the article would have been if the author had just posted his misunderstandings as "hey I tried googling but did not understand these points, can an expert in the field help me understand the following...?". A world to live in indeed!
In everything I've read about quantum computing, I've always had nagging doubts about the actual engineering details required to make a QC a viable means of solving computing limitations. The original article sums all of these doubts up, and expounds on them. Can anyone who has actually worked on QC's offer an experiential rebuttle to the author's claims?
Addendum: I think most reasonable people reading these comments can agree that the author is hostile to the topic, bordering on being an asshole, and he probably knows this. However, this has NO impact on his assertions. They are good, especially the references to older arguments against the potential of QC's, which still seem quite valid.
"He also noticed that instead of making progress down fruitful lanes or improving detailed knowledge of important areas, most develop enthusiasms for the latest non-experimental wank fest; complexity theory, network theory, noodle theory."
What exactly is the issue with complexity and network theory?
A finance guy calling out physicists for wasting resources and doing useless work?
Whether quantum computing research will deliver anything useful soon or not (it won't), I think the picture at the end sums up the author's attitude nicely.
[+] [-] gaze|7 years ago|reply
I'm not sure what he means very little progress... we're entangling over long distances, we're doing practical error correction, we're reaching really long coherence times. More importantly, we've seen exponential progress in coherence times over time. Moore's law-like progress. Quantum computing has also had the side benefit of generating obviously practical results like ultra wide bandwidth, high dynamic range quantum limited amplifiers, and debatably practical but stunning fundamental results like reversing a quantum jump in real time by feedback. This is all recent. Quantum computing research has exploded in the last 10 years. The blog post just sounds like some dude that doesn't really understand physics, didn't do a thorough literature search, didn't really even look at recent news articles, who pats himself on the back for being a real practical business guy instead of a Quantum Physics PhD, because some Quantum Physics PhD served him food or something and thus they must all be floundering. He then goes on to poorly explain why quantum computing is really really hard and therefore we shouldn't be spending money on it. Poorly I say because he can't even seem to explain properly one of MANY proposed implementations of a quantum computer. One that isn't even particularly popular anymore. I really think he just woke up angry and wrote this.
Nearly having finished a PhD in quantum computing, I wouldn't say the skills I'm most proud of I picked up are my understanding of quantum mechanics... I'm now an expert in low noise microwave electronics, high speed feedback control, cryogenics. Some of which are practically useful skills, some of which are highly applicable towards better understanding of the natural world in ways that I think the author would even agree are worthwhile. So no, my life hasn't been wasted and my career hasn't been ruined.
[+] [-] bassman9000|7 years ago|reply
I think it read more like
We're still ages away from the ancilliary technologies that will allow us to tackle quantum computing
The whole XVIII century vs SR-71 example was pretty clear
[+] [-] scottlocklin|7 years ago|reply
Talk to me in 10 years when you're not bringing me a steak for a living.
FWIIW I went to a Gordon conference on this in the 90s, and literally, the capabilities of quantum computers have not changed since then. Zero. None. There has been no "Moore's law like progress." There hasn't been any! That's the point! There's been more progress in interstellar space flight than quantum computing (I dunno, White-Juday is at least a good try), but at least warp drive creators aren't trying to convince people like you to ruin your lives.
[+] [-] drdeca|7 years ago|reply
"Quantum computing hasn't been practically useful yet!" Yes, we know that; thank you for your valuable insight.
You'd think that it would actually comment on the claims made of late, about BosonSampling and whatnot, but as far as I could tell, nope!
[+] [-] Libbum|7 years ago|reply
Sure, many of the points made are valid - work is still ongoing. Progress however, has been staggering. Ignore the whole quantum computer aspect, and you still have condenser matter, nanomanufacturing, optics, material science, modelling, dilution refrigeration, metrology and many other fields that directly benefit from the funding that's going into quantum computing at the moment.
[+] [-] currymj|7 years ago|reply
Maybe there are some good or at least interestingly wrong arguments but I find myself incapable of looking past the rhetoric.
[+] [-] benmcnelly|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ivansavz|7 years ago|reply
Personally, I'm all for more progress on quantum information science topics, but I think it will be better for the field if we rein in some of the claims about the potential for the technology, and the timeframe when it will become practical.
[+] [-] mimixco|7 years ago|reply
In other words, quantum computers are less powerful than Turing machines which can solve any problem that any computer can ever solve -- including one's we haven't seen yet.
[+] [-] scottlocklin|7 years ago|reply
http://www.dbta.com/Editorial/News-Flashes/IBM-Unveils-Quant...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tiriasresearch/2019/01/17/ibm-l...
https://www.openpr.com/news/1516739/Quantum-Computing-Market...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/gemmamilne/2019/01/14/the-inves...
http://techgenix.com/quantum-computing-cloud/
https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/08/daily-crunch-the-age-of-qu...
http://discovermagazine.com/2019/jan/quantum-supremacy
https://jaxenter.com/quantum-computing-cryptography-security...
https://gizmodo.com/us-passes-bill-to-inject-1-2-billion-int...
[+] [-] yifanlu|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scottlocklin|7 years ago|reply
I think it would be great if people took this up as a hobby. I don't even mind wasting VC on stuff like this, and said so. I object to researchers selling this to young scientists as a potential career. It's not! It is a glass bead game, and acting like it isn't is the moral equivalent of fraud.
[+] [-] flashgordon|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] craftinator|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] craftinator|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nairboon|7 years ago|reply
What exactly is the issue with complexity and network theory?
[+] [-] jacknews|7 years ago|reply
Whether quantum computing research will deliver anything useful soon or not (it won't), I think the picture at the end sums up the author's attitude nicely.