Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

StalkMeNowCrazyLady t1_iuqm4h0 wrote

Reply to comment by fgerber72 in Launch of Aquila, the first neutral-atom quantum processor with up to 256 qubits. by steel_member

Exactly. Your OP is ignoring the fact that for ~40 years computers weren't considered to have a application or use in the life of an average person by tons of people, yet here we are. It may take 100 years but eventually the average person will have something more powerful than this particular quantum computer in their pocket everyday.

15

Harbinger2001 t1_ius643k wrote

That depends. There are some material science aspects of this that might not have a room temperature solution. I doubt We’ll be carrying around super-cooled computers.

4

ifuckedyourgf t1_iuw4t16 wrote

The point is that, for 99.9% of all use cases, a quantum computer is going to be vastly slower than an "equivalent" classical computer. Think of it as the computing equivalent of an idiot savant. Sure it'll factor numbers exponentially faster, but it's not like it'll improve the graphics of a video game.

Assuming it's even possible to mass produce miniaturized room temperature quantum co-processors suitable for consumer devices, it's not currently obvious (to me, at least) what that might be useful for. I'm not saying we won't ever find a use case, but I just don't know what that would be. Especially when we weigh the pros and cons against a cloud compute solution. My best guess is that there might be potential applications related to military/weapons technology and/or space travel, or other contexts without fast and reliable Internet access, but that's just speculation on my part.

1