|
|
|
|
|
by acchow
1590 days ago
|
|
Classical silicon chips got to exponential growth because chips were profitable - the profits could be poured back into R&D enabling a natural feedback loop. Profitability wasn't terribly difficult because computers were VERY fast at calculations compared to the next best thing - humans. For QC to hit natural exponential growth, it would need to be economically feasible compared to the next best thing - classical computers. Is there anything even a tiny QC can do better, faster, and cheaper than a classical computer? |
|
>Is there anything even a tiny QC can do better, faster, and cheaper than a classical computer?
This is a really good question, and I don't know the answer. If I were to try, I'd focus on QC efficient algorithms, and what you can do with that in an application. So, in your system a QC is a magic box that takes an O(n^2) algo and makes it O(n), say. But for ordinary humans, n is very small, so this won't matter. I don't think there is mundane problem, e.g. one dealing with ordinary productivity, that a QC can do better than classical. It's shaping up to be a nation-state funded capital intensive information superweapon against private communication. And you know what? Maybe if you can maintain the infrastructure and staff to build one, you deserve to have it! It's especially untroubling if it's capacity is limited, like being able to read 10 2048-bit RSA encrypted messages per day. That's a superpower, but a very limited and expensive one, which I am fine with.