Like what exactly? Do you understand that science is self-referential? Nobody from the quantum computing world will confirm that they’re crooks and those physicists who claim that QC is a bubble are pronounced dorks.
I don’t have sources, only arguments.
- They had an audacity to announce achieving quantum supremacy a few years ago. If you read this paper carefully, you’d see that the achievement is simulation of the quantum chip itself for 200 ms.
- Algorithms. Why the fuck one would need to crack a fucking security code? While a substantial progress in error correction has been achieved, 3 old main algorithms for real world use are still in favor: Schor, Grover and Quantum Fourier. And they are still not superior for AES256.
- Significant changes in roadmap have been announced from a proclaimed leader of quantum computing. They have expected 1000 operational qubits by 2025, but now they want to error correct on their 84 qubits scheme (that still stimulates itself). I hope that in this decade they could use quantum computers to prove that 161 = 7 x 23, but I’m in doubt.
I’m not in anyway claiming that quantum computers should not be developed: they might have uses in material science and in metrology. I’m highlighting the predicament that we have here: if the expectations from QC were real, nobody would invest in it, but if the expectations are not real, the investments will experience a sudden drop which will stop the research for a while.
Malofeev murders yet another official and nobody cares. Buckle up, friends, there’s gonna be something entertaining