>>12952360everyone here seems to get their information from pop-sci "QUANTUM COMPOOTER GOOD" followed by "ACTUALLY QUANTIM COMPUTRS BAD", and so far literally all topics in this thread are surface-level information you would find reading any of the first 3 IFUCKINGLOVESCIENCE articles on the subject
We are at the babby stage with QCs. The logic gates are entirely alien, and the most we've done really is try to replicate classic computing on QCs.
QCs require an entirely different set of maths to work with, and we've barely scratched the surface.
They have big hindrances now (no-copy theorem, getting the hidden state info out of collapsing the wave function) but they hold a lot of promise.
Quantum classification is interesting; single-qubit re-uploading works nearly as well as a random neural net (baby stuff still, but promising). QCs aren't "classic computers with more bits", they have such a bizarre logic-gate/workings that we are basically starting all over again from the ground up; there's this assumption that we are jumping off from where classical computers left off (pretty advanced and known a lot) and are just extending that with QCs, but that's really not what's happening; we are starting over from scratch, and the only thing we know is classic computer algorithms, so we are awkwardly just re-creating them in QCs. We are still figuring out goddamn quantum RAM, let alone anything else. But QCs will more likely shine best when they have their own, non-analagous to classic computers algorithms, and we AREN'T there.
The other thing to note is that they are more like glorified calculators, and will be best served when plugged into a classic computer (so hybrid QC/CC architecture). Think like how your GPU is part of the whole system, but makes or breaks most tasks. QCs will allow some really cool and bizarre shit.
At the end of the day, we aren't in a position to know the promise they hold, but it's more than likely immense.
