Technology

59211 readers

2705 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

250

Regarding this picture, where do you think quantum computers lie and why? (programming.dev)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by Mexigore@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

113 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Personally I find quantum computers really impressive, and they havent been given its righteous hype.

I know they won't be something everyone has in their house but it will greatly improve some services.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Why are you isolating a single algorithm?

To show that quantum computing only helps with very specific parts of very specific algorithms.

A QC is not a CPU, it's not a GPU, it's closer to a superpowered FPU.

If they would offer speed benefits, then why wouldn't you want to have the chip that offers the speed benefits in your phone?

if somehow consumers could have access to technology in their phone that would offer performance benefits to their software that they wouldn't want it.

Because the same functionality would be available as a cloud service (like AI now). This reduces costs and the need to carry liquid nitrogen around.

The issue is not that quantum computers could not offer performance benefits in theory.

It is this. QC only enhances some very specific tasks.

It is the same with GPUs. A GPU can only speed up certain problems. You have libraries that only call the GPU when it is needed for certain calculations.

Yes, exactly my point. QC is a less flexible GPU.

I don't see why consumers wouldn't want it.

Because they would need to use the specific quantum enhanced algorithms frequently enough to pay to have local, always on access.

They will likely remain something largely used by businesses but in my view it will be mostly because of practical concerns. The benefits of them won't outweigh the cost anytime soon.

Agree. Unless some magic tech, like room temperature superconductors, turns up there will only be quantum as a service supplied for some very specific business needs.

[–] bunchberry@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Because the same functionality would be available as a cloud service (like AI now). This reduces costs and the need to carry liquid nitrogen around.

Okay, you are just misrepresenting my argument at this point.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Actually I think we are mostly agreeing.

The difference is that you think that the technology will quickly be made cheap and portable enough for mass consumption and I think it will remain, for quite some time, niche and expensive, like high end, precision industrial equipment.