[jimmar]

> IBM anticipates that the first cases of verified quantum advantage will be confirmed by the wider community by the end of 2026.

In 2019, Google claimed quantum supremacy [1]. I'm truly confused about what quantum computing can do today, or what it's likely to be able to do in the next decade.

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/technology/computing/google-and-nasa-ac...

[StableAlkyne]

There's legitimately interesting research in using it to accelerate certain calculations. For example, usually you see a few talks at chemistry conferences on how it's gotten marginally faster at (very basic) electronic structure calculations. Also some neat stuff in the optimization space. Stuff you keep your eye on hoping it's useful in 10 years.

The most similar comparison is AI stuff, except even that has found some practical applications. Unlike AI, there isn't really much practicality for quantum computers right now beyond bumping up your h-index

Well, maybe there is one. As a joke with some friends after a particularly bad string of natural 1's in D&D, I used IBM's free tier (IIRC it's 10 minutes per month) and wrote a dice roller to achieve maximum randomness.

[NickC25]

that was my understanding too - in the fields of chemistry, materials science, pharmaceutical development, etc... quantum tech is somewhat promising and might be pretty viable in those specific niche fields within the decade.

[hattmall]

A decade from now Quantum computing will be in the same place it was a decade ago, on the cusp of proving a quantum advantage for tailor made problems in comparison to normal availability supercomputers. Classical compute will advance in that time period to keep the quantum computers always on the cusp.

The major non-compute related engineering breakthroughs needed for quantum computing to actually be advantageous in a way that would be revolutionary are themselves so revolutionary that the advancements of quantum computing would be vastly overshadowed. Again it's a case where those breakthroughs would so greatly enhance classic compute in terms of processing and reduction in costs that it still probably wouldn't be economically viable to produce general purpose quantum computers.

[Y_Y]

The trouble with quantum supremacy results is they disappear as soon as you observe them (carefully).

Sorry for that, but seriously, I'd treat this kind of claim like any other putative breakthrough (room-temperature superconductors spring to mind), until it's independently verified it's worthless. The punishment for crying wolf is minimal and by the time you're shown to be bullshitting the headlines have moved on.

The other method, of course, is to just obsessively check Scott Aaronson's blog.

[mapmeld]

IBM challenged that the 2019 case could be handled by a supercomputer [1].

The main issue is that these algorithms where today's early quantum computers have an advantage were specifically designed to be demonstration problems. All of the tasks that people previously wanted a quantum computer to do are still impractical with today's hardware.

[1] https://www.quantamagazine.org/google-and-ibm-clash-over-qua...