[valw]

> Are quantum computers overhyped?

Well, let's see:

> When given the same problem, a quantum computer should be able to trounce any supercomputer in any problem in terms of speed and efficiency

LOL, no, not any problem, far from it. Some problems, rather specific ones, such as prime factoring.

> Our current system, for example, taps into electrons and cleverly-designed chips to perform their functions. Quantum computers are similar, but they rely on alternative particle physics.

Um, no, they both rely on the same physics, that is a combination of Quantum Mechanics and electromagnetism. Note to the author: an electron is a quantum system, and classical electronics definitely rely on that.

So yes, quantum computers are overhyped, through no faults of their own, and this article contributes to the trend.

[Karellen]

> Some problems, rather specific ones, such as prime factoring.

You don't need a quantum computer for that! I can factor arbitrarily large primes in my head. For any given prime p, it's factors are 1 and p. Done!

:-)

[valw]

I made the same remark in reply to another comment which used the phrase "factoring primes" :) Wikipedia does use the term "prime factorization": that seems legit to me, as prime is used as an adjective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization

[packetlost]

> LOL, no, not any problem, far from it. Some problems, rather specific ones, such as prime factoring.

Yeah, as someone who works in quantum computing this is the hardest thing for me to explain to non-technical people. For technical people, I liken it to a FP unit or some other specialized coprocessor that's often embedded in CPU/GPUs.

> Quantum computers are similar, but they rely on alternative particle physics.

I think it's fair to say this in reference to using different physical properties of electrons than what normal computers use. The physics rules are the same, but how you manipulate them is different, presumably (I don't know much of how photonic QCs work)

[seanw444]

I never thought of it that way for some reason. Always imagined mature quantum computers as being their own system. But it's possible a lot of them will be supplementary components to a classical computer. We have storage-over-PCIe, graphics-over-PCIe, and soon quantum-over-PCIe?

[martincmartin]

Yes it's overhyped, but to be fair, the whole point of classical electronics is to hide the quantum nature as much as possible. You want your transistor to act as a deterministic switch, not be in a superposition of states.

[valw]

Well, to be also fair, we also want quantum electronics to be deterministic in their behaviour. The difference lies not so much in randomness as in leveraging intrication.

[Rayhem]

> Some problems, rather specific ones, such as prime factoring.

This is absolutely how we understand the technology now, but I think it's worth noting that computing luminaries also thought "640Kb of memory was more than enough for anyone" and that "eight mainframe computers will serve the computing needs of everyone across the planet" at one point in time, too. Quantum computers are definitely overhyped and that may be all they're good for, but it's also possible we'll figure out how to do some crazy shit with them in the future, too.

[Workaccount2]

Singularity Hub is just a clickbait pop science site.