>>12570942>If QM are better at calculations, what is superior about classical computers?How about the fact that you can copy data
>Aren't the most resource intensive things in computing (rendering, videogames, simulations) calculations?yeah
To completely steal a statement: "Quantum computers are only know to provide exponential speedups in cases where there is some algebraic structure to exploit when condensing the exponentially many computations down to a single result"
quantum computers have 2^n calculations available (n = qubits), but the big problems are
1) although internal state calculations are "stored" in memory by nature, they must ALWAYS collapse to either a 0 or 1, and
2) you cannot copy the state of data. At all.
Quantum computers are an entirely different world and architecture; the gates you can build with QC are o outside of classical computers that its hard to know what limit we're at. Currently, the state of QC is to replicate or adapt classic computer algorithms and explore some baby-steps into what QC can do, but we are very much at the "computer takes up an entire room and uses punch cards" stage of what we know they can do.
As mentioned above, if we can translate algorithms that are exponentially too hard to compute is a reasonable time into something that can be reduced down to a "yes/no" type state, QC will outpace any existing architecture, biological or silicon. We already know QC can crack the current gold-standard prime factorization-based encryption; it will take a while for the hardware to get there, but its not too far out.
I see huge potential in classification problems. A lot of ML boils down to binary 0/1, yes/no for classification purposes (e.g., whether a new drug is active again HIV reverse transcriptase). We've barely tapped the surface of classification with QC, and one of the first successes was emulating a NN using just one qubit and data re-uploading (really neat paper, maps 0/1onto the bloch sphere).
