I think current CPUs and computers aren't really that much better than
the cpus and PCs 10 years ago - they are just faster.

So when do the real quantum leaps come - Quantum computers, real AI,
machines that can do more than a Windows PC which really isn't more
"intelligent" than an ancient Apple II from the 70s...

Evan-Josh Roose wrote:
> I think current CPUs and computers aren't really that much better than
> the cpus and PCs 10 years ago - they are just faster.
>
> So when do the real quantum leaps come - Quantum computers, real AI,
> machines that can do more than a Windows PC which really isn't more
> "intelligent" than an ancient Apple II from the 70s...

What makes you think a quantum computer will
be any more "intelligent" ?

And I think it will be a few years yet.
They just announced a milestone a few weeks ago
about managing to arrange 5 qbits into a 4 + parity
storage cell. When usages of several orders of
magnitude more qbits ceases to become newsworthy then
it might be the appropriate time to start asking your
question.

--
Reply to (E-Mail Removed)
Do not remove anything.

Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Evan-Josh Roose wrote:
>> I think current CPUs and computers aren't really that much
>> better than the cpus and PCs 10 years ago - they are just faster.

>> So when do the real quantum leaps come - Quantum computers, real
>> AI, machines that can do more than a Windows PC which really
>> isn't more "intelligent" than an ancient Apple II from the 70s...

> What makes you think a quantum computer will be any more "intelligent" ?

Exactly. I see the biggest problem being software, not
hardware. Lots of people have been working on radically
different types of software (learning, or path dependant).
Until these are developed, quantum computers will just be
used to run current pgms faster.

-- Robert

Robert Redelmeier wrote:

> Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Evan-Josh Roose wrote:
>>
>>>I think current CPUs and computers aren't really that much
>>>better than the cpus and PCs 10 years ago - they are just faster.
>
>
>>>So when do the real quantum leaps come - Quantum computers, real
>>>AI, machines that can do more than a Windows PC which really
>>>isn't more "intelligent" than an ancient Apple II from the 70s...
>
>
>
>>What makes you think a quantum computer will be any more "intelligent" ?
>
>
> Exactly. I see the biggest problem being software, not
> hardware. Lots of people have been working on radically
> different types of software (learning, or path dependant).
> Until these are developed, quantum computers will just be
> used to run current pgms faster.
>

I think for a while after quantum computing becomes
available the initial users are going to be restricted
entirely to the guys who did the R&D work for quantum
hardware. For a long time they are going to be the only
ones who will be able to grasp exactly what it is
possible to accomplish with those computers.

The phrase "paradigm shift" has been used and abused so
much that I hate to use it, but I think quantum computing
is simply going to present too much of a "paradigm shift"
for most people to handle.

At some point some bright kid will develop an abstraction
layer that will let the current generation of programmers
deal with quantum hardware. Until that happens, the
overwhelming majority of those programmers will never be
able to adjust to programming for a platform that doesn't
obediently push discrete bits around in wholly predictable
ways.

--
Reply to (E-Mail Removed)
Do not remove anything.

Rob Stow wrote:

> Robert Redelmeier wrote:
>
>> Rob Stow <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Evan-Josh Roose wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think current CPUs and computers aren't really that much
>>>> better than the cpus and PCs 10 years ago - they are just faster.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> So when do the real quantum leaps come - Quantum computers, real
>>>> AI, machines that can do more than a Windows PC which really
>>>> isn't more "intelligent" than an ancient Apple II from the 70s...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> What makes you think a quantum computer will be any more "intelligent" ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly. I see the biggest problem being software, not
>> hardware. Lots of people have been working on radically
>> different types of software (learning, or path dependant).
>> Until these are developed, quantum computers will just be
>> used to run current pgms faster.
>>
>
> I think for a while after quantum computing becomes
> available the initial users are going to be restricted
> entirely to the guys who did the R&D work for quantum
> hardware. For a long time they are going to be the only
> ones who will be able to grasp exactly what it is
> possible to accomplish with those computers.
>
> The phrase "paradigm shift" has been used and abused so
> much that I hate to use it, but I think quantum computing
> is simply going to present too much of a "paradigm shift"
> for most people to handle.
>
> At some point some bright kid will develop an abstraction
> layer that will let the current generation of programmers
> deal with quantum hardware. Until that happens, the
> overwhelming majority of those programmers will never be
> able to adjust to programming for a platform that doesn't
> obediently push discrete bits around in wholly predictable
> ways.
>

A working quantum computer will almost certainly be put to immediate use
by three letter agencies with an interest in cryptography.

As to more general uses for quantum computers, one answer not completely
out of the realm of possibility is never. Never is almost always the
wrong answer in technology, but people might first want to make more
progress understanding the capabilities and limitations of classical
platforms for the more ambitious things (like artificial intelligence)
one might do with quantum computers.

My fear of quantum computers is that they make a really convenient
excuse for the three letter agencies to continue in their current
holding pattern until this far-in-the-future silver bullet materializes.
I'm solid with the OP of his assessment of progress since the Apple II
(or my beloved Cray I). In any case, I hope we don't have to wait for
quantum computers for something that might qualify as a paradigm shift.

RM

"Evan-Josh Roose" <(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le message de
news:(E-Mail Removed)...


> I think current CPUs and computers aren't really that much better than
> the cpus and PCs 10 years ago - they are just faster.
>
> So when do the real quantum leaps come - Quantum computers, real AI,
> machines that can do more than a Windows PC which really isn't more
> "intelligent" than an ancient Apple II from the 70s...

After the very possibility of their existence will be proven
experimentally, which is far from certain, and to say the truth,
extremely dubious. Nobody on earth understand quantum mechanics, so for
its applications... come again later.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free dot F-country
Why? Must I?

"Cl.Massé" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4151e034$0$278$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Evan-Josh Roose" <(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le message de
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
> > I think current CPUs and computers aren't really that much better than
> > the cpus and PCs 10 years ago - they are just faster.
> >
> > So when do the real quantum leaps come - Quantum computers, real AI,
> > machines that can do more than a Windows PC which really isn't more
> > "intelligent" than an ancient Apple II from the 70s...
>
> After the very possibility of their existence will be proven
> experimentally, which is far from certain, and to say the truth,
> extremely dubious. Nobody on earth understand quantum mechanics, so for
> its applications... come again later.
>
At the most one could only claim that nobody understands the *metaphysical*
implications. Like all of physics, QM is just mathematics, and most modern
technology utilizes it.

"Interesting Ian" <(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le
message de news:Vbx5d.38$(E-Mail Removed)...


> At the most one could only claim that nobody understands the
> *metaphysical* implications. Like all of physics, QM is just
> mathematics, and most modern technology utilizes it.

The quantum computer uses metaphysical implications, in their pure
mathematical form. Modern technology uses experimental data of quantum
phenomena. Technology isn't science.

--
~~~~ clmasse on free dot F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.

Cl.Massé wrote:
> "Interesting Ian" <(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le
> message de news:Vbx5d.38$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
>
>>At the most one could only claim that nobody understands the
>>*metaphysical* implications. Like all of physics, QM is just
>>mathematics, and most modern technology utilizes it.
>
>
> The quantum computer uses metaphysical implications, in their pure
> mathematical form. Modern technology uses experimental data of quantum
> phenomena. Technology isn't science.

That is where you are wrong. Quantum computer does not use any mathaphysical
implications, just the very same QM formalism as any other technologies.
What makes it different is the experimental difficulty in handling this
particular application of the formalism - the mixed states, because they become
decoherent with smallest interferance from outside. So, problem with QM computers
is purely technical - isolating the mixed states and modifying them without
causing decoherence.
Nobody has any doubths about correctness of mathematical
or physical approach they are based on. However many have doubths about feasibility
of its technological implementation. I am however quite optimistic that
it can be made practical, but not too soon. You already have QM effects in
your PC (in the harddrive, that uses giant magnetoresistance - purely QM effect).
I expect computers using QM effect as basis of CPU and memory in 10 - 15 years.

Regards,
Evgenij





--

__________________________________________________
*science&fiction*free programs*fine art*phylosophy:
http://sudy_zhenja.tripod.com
----------remove hate_spam to answer--------------

"Evgenij Barsukov" <e-(E-Mail Removed)> a écrit dans le
message de news:cj9uo2$cjn$(E-Mail Removed)...

> That is where you are wrong. Quantum computer does not use any
> mathaphysical implications, just the very same QM formalism as any
> other technologies.
> What makes it different is the experimental difficulty in handling
> this particular application of the formalism - the mixed states,
> because they become decoherent with smallest interferance from
> outside.

The error is, the mixed state doesn't contain two states, but only one
and we don't know which. It is impossible to read the two states since
during this operation, the quantum state collapses toward one of them,
and not because of decoherence. Decoherence is also widely disputed
as an explanation of the quantum mysteries. You see we are right in the
core of the interpretation of QM, which hasn't a satisfactory solution
yet. Quantum computer try to make a bold jump from our current
knowledge, unlike other applications.

> So, problem with QM computers
> is purely technical - isolating the mixed states and modifying them
> without causing decoherence.
> Nobody has any doubths about correctness of mathematical
> or physical approach they are based on.

Nobody? You know them all? If they all are wrong, does that make them
right?

--
~~~~ clmasse on free dot F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.