I'm a massive quantum computing skeptic. However, I do believe that if there is going to be an actual real and practical QC use case with verifiable quantum advantage in our lifetimes, it's NOT going to be factoring with Shor's or doing search with Grover's, it's going to be molecular interaction simulation as described here. Even so, I give it less than 50% chance of coming to fruition.
"This study shows that quantum computers are starting to deliver value in real chemical simulations — not just toy problems or idealized systems."
Looking forward towards it. But I am sceptical how much value exactly was added, but I lack the insight here.
[deleted]
Given that nobody, and I mean nobody [including Scott Aaronson[0]] understands Grover's algorithm[1], one can only be certain that value was only delivered to the stakeholders.
The whole industry exists to prove Feynman, uh, consistent[2].
Didn't he say nobody understands quantum, but didn't he also claim that quantum computing can be useful?
There was so much HN confidence that this would be the bold disrupter that would prove ITER was a waste of money by being the <buzzword buzzword buzzword> about that.
Which isn't to the project was bad, but boy does a lot of stuff like this get announced and then people start making victory lap posts as though it's already succeeded.
Gotta declare success to get the next round of funding
I'm a massive quantum computing skeptic. However, I do believe that if there is going to be an actual real and practical QC use case with verifiable quantum advantage in our lifetimes, it's NOT going to be factoring with Shor's or doing search with Grover's, it's going to be molecular interaction simulation as described here. Even so, I give it less than 50% chance of coming to fruition.
"This study shows that quantum computers are starting to deliver value in real chemical simulations — not just toy problems or idealized systems."
Looking forward towards it. But I am sceptical how much value exactly was added, but I lack the insight here.
Given that nobody, and I mean nobody [including Scott Aaronson[0]] understands Grover's algorithm[1], one can only be certain that value was only delivered to the stakeholders.
The whole industry exists to prove Feynman, uh, consistent[2]. Didn't he say nobody understands quantum, but didn't he also claim that quantum computing can be useful?
[0]https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611976014.5
Although Scott is the most honest of them all
[1]3b1b was in good company, not sure about now?
https://youtu.be/Dlsa9EBKDGI
[2]he demonstrated that not fooling oneself was of the utmost importance by continuing to provide the prime example of fooling oneself?
How does the paper from [0] show that Aaronson doesn't understand Grover's algorithm? What level of "understanding" are you looking for here?
How’s that Lockheed fusion reactor coming along?
https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/science/lockheed-s...
There was so much HN confidence that this would be the bold disrupter that would prove ITER was a waste of money by being the <buzzword buzzword buzzword> about that.
Which isn't to the project was bad, but boy does a lot of stuff like this get announced and then people start making victory lap posts as though it's already succeeded.
Gotta declare success to get the next round of funding
[dead]