Thank you, PoweredByLight. My points exactly.
The way I see it, glorifying early quantum computing results is like a made up superstition under the assumption that any computational prowess exist in the industry today deemed inadequate. While, it might be true to some degree, I'd say its entirely about software and programming and finally the hardware they chose to use. The power is there, its how you use it. Processing efficiency entirely depends on it.
But don't get me wrong. I like the idea of quantum computing exist. I just don't like it when people spread some early result it had and tell other people that no tech today can do that. To my understanding, quantum computing still has a lot of catching up to do. And surely these same people underestimate the raw processing power of today's standard. Even more astounding as what marginally lower profile of GPU Compute achieved over cluster upon cluster of previous solutions.
Do people even realizes how much effort goes into visualizing and simulating a blackhole in all its glory in 3D physics environment?
Do they even realize how much processing power a Tesla card has? Each generation is an engineering marvel of their time.
Also, the reliance upon CPU as main processing power has long gone. We now do it with maximum parallelism. In fact, this very method has been used since earliest super computer was born, which essentially lots of CPU stacked together to behave as one single unit.
I expect in the future, quantum computing will simply be part of those cluster and used for very specific tasks. The thing just very different than binary computing the industry does. How will they do it is beyond me tho...
Or maybe I miss something here, and my assertion is entirely wrong. Which is the point of quantum computing in the first place. Then please, tell me.
*This science stuff excites me