this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
327 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
70550 readers
3912 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As I said repeatedly: Wake me up on Quantum computers once they are capable to do something actually useful, and not just random worthless quantum benchmarks.
Same thing with fusion reactors.
All the current machines out there are for research purposes only. Nobody can currently power an arc furnace of a steel mill using only fusion power. Sure, there’s been some progress with fusion and quantum computing, but it takes a while to get to an actual practical application of the technology.
While I am convinced that fusion will get somewhere practical in the near future, I have serious doubts on the practical viability of quantum computing.
So, do you think that quantum computing has a much longer way to go?
I'm quite convinced that quantum computing will lead to exacly nothing. My bet is that the error factor will grow larger than the result scope, and not a single thing they try to stabilize will ultimatively make it viable.
And who are you to emphasize that part?
Should we be subscribed to you or something?