cm0002@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 11 hours agoMicrosoft's quantum computing claims slammed as 'fraudulent'www.windowscentral.comexternal-linkmessage-square30fedilinkarrow-up1241arrow-down16
arrow-up1235arrow-down1external-linkMicrosoft's quantum computing claims slammed as 'fraudulent'www.windowscentral.comcm0002@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 11 hours agomessage-square30fedilink
minus-squareTreczoks@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7arrow-down6·9 hours agoOf course. Not a single quantum computer has done anything but test programs and quantum-specific benchmarks. Until a quantum computer finally does something a normal computer regularly does, but faster, we should simply ignore this area.
minus-squareLv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12·9 hours ago until it’s better we should simply ignore this That seems like a strange comment to make. How will it get better if we don’t spend the time and effort to make it better?
minus-squareImgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·8 hours agoWith quantum computing if you ignore it you are simultaneously not ignoring it?
Of course. Not a single quantum computer has done anything but test programs and quantum-specific benchmarks. Until a quantum computer finally does something a normal computer regularly does, but faster, we should simply ignore this area.
That seems like a strange comment to make. How will it get better if we don’t spend the time and effort to make it better?
With quantum computing if you ignore it you are simultaneously not ignoring it?
I don’t think so, but yes.