this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
72 points (84.6% liked)
Asklemmy
49703 readers
374 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Personal quantum computers, and maybe virtual reality with artificial intelligence combined.
Personal quantum computers would be truely useless. They break specific kinds of encryption, and simulate other quantum systems. Other than that, nobody's been able to devise a way to make them do much practical work.
Really, it's unfortunate they were named that, because they're only like computers if you have a solid background in computing to understand the analogy. "Quantum emulator" or "programmable quantum system" might be a better word that wouldn't make people think it's the next semiconductor node. Alas, I have no time machine to fix it.
In 1940, Thomas Watson, president of IBM, said the world would ever need at most 5 computers
In 1940 I would have agreed. Nobody had any idea they could be small, fast or convenient. Nobody had even bothered to build one outside of Germany, with ENIAC still a few years away, and synthetic semiconductors hadn't been invented, so he was picturing thousands of tubes that would have to be changed out constantly. Five was actually a bold estimate, it's like saying "only 5 space elevators" today.
Also, that's not actually a response to what I said. It's just another anecdote about someone being wrong once.
True, I thought the response could be inferred. What I meant to say is that you can't make proper predictions with any degree of certainty about future developments with the scopes of current knowledge. Like superconductors for computers, someone could invent something equivalent to a quantum superconductor which would propel the advancement of quantum computers forward by decades.
Meeting that description would be a material with fractional-spin quasiparticals, and yeah, building a quantum computer would be easy with those. Otherwise, it seems likely we'll get them in the 30's, or maybe even late this decade.
That's not the issue, though. There might well be no helpful algorithms that exist for the thing, outside of research applications like simulating quantum systems. It could only ever be the next big thing for certain scientists unless that fundamentally changes. You're right, I can't say for certain that it won't, but it's not a good guess.
Broken encryption might be the next big thing, but that's actually a negative. In my response I put down post-quantum cryptography as a possibility, just based on how I interpret the question.
Maybe useless to you. Iโll definitely find use for it. And cracking encryption is a huge plus. Quantum computers have been around for a long time and in use there are all sorts of software and even special OS for it just not for public use for obvious reasons.
Bro, do you even know a Kronecker product from a discrete log? You'll find a use my ass. And now you're in with a super secret group of quantum computer users. Are you sending ninjas after me next?