They went from:>With this, we’ll be able to calculate everything. It’s like using all parallel realities for computation at the same time. You can collapse the structured quantum field in such a way that it yields the correct solution.to:>It’s not actually useful for anything practical. In fact, the wave function is just a probability distribution function. Oh, and you literally have to measure the result at least a thousand times before you can confidently accept the solution.And it took hundreds of billions of dollars. Mostly taxpayer money.
>>16967872there's no grift like the research grift
it's actually not, you just don't get it
>>16967914Tell us
the basis of quantum computing is valid and justified, but there is a huge grift in companies taking advantage of the hypein order for a quatumn computer to function we need millions of detectors for quantum states instaneaously which is a substantial engineering problemwe have quantum computers with dozens of particles but that's not enough for a computerso any company trying to sell quantum anything is faking it
>>16967920>the basis of quantum computing is valid and justifiedIt's ten layers of mathematical models stacked on top of each other. No one knows anything about the underlying ontology. Quantum computing is just theoretical extrapolation.>we have quantum computers with dozens of particlesIf you look into it, you’ll realize that such a thing doesn’t exist. Those are not "computers" in any sense. Even systems with just a few qubits only produce random signals with some correlation, which could be due to anything.
>>16967924we have high-fidelity gate operationsscience doesn't need a perfect 'ontology' to be functional, we used Maxwell’s equations for decades before we understood the electron, the math works, the problem is decoherence and error correction, which are engineering hurdles, not proof that the theory is a 'mathematical stack' of liescheck the Sycamore or Jiuzhang results, even if those specific tasks aren't 'useful' for excel spreadsheets yet, they proved a quantum system can sample probability distributions in a way that is physically impossible for a classical bit-based architecture, that’s not a random signal; that’s a different class of physicsquantum computers are very good a doing inference for probability, you have to think of operations in that frame
>>16967930>the math worksThis is exactly the problem with the whole field. What you have is trust, not knowledge. Working mathematical models can be found by trial and error as well, understanding doesn’t follow from that. The idea of a quantum computer, however, is a multi-step ontological leap. Your engineering problems are actually ontological problems. You will fail with your idea, just as everyone has failed over the past 40 years.
>>16967924>>16967934definitionally quantum computers aren't computers, because they belong to a higher class of computational power. that's literally the point.do you know what "random" means? lay off the LLMs, the twitter posts, the reddit posts, the youtube slop, whatever is inspiring this incoherent schizobabble. then take a deep breath and pick up some real philosophy, start studying logic (as in the field, not fucking aristotle), mathematical foundations, formal theory, computer science, and so on.the problematic lack of understanding here is the word salad coming out of your mouth.
>>16967938So you can't make a single argument. Go back!
>>16967920Everytime someone references particles i do a shot.
>>16967919If I did I'd have to kill you.
>>16967938>the problematic lack of understanding here is the word salad coming out of your mouth.this exactly describes your post.
