← Back to context

Comment by tgv

6 hours ago

> dismissing the Manhattan Project as hopelessly stalled in 1944

Then again, there are enough examples of failed projects. Why should this be comparable to the Manhattan project? In 1944, it was only two years underway, whereas Shor's algorithm is over 30. Tons of articles have been published on quantum computing, while the A bomb was kept as secret as possible, making learning from other countries, sometimes even from colleagues, impossible. In 1942, an atomic explosion was still hypothetical, whereas quantum computing had its first commercial service 7 years ago. Etc.

So, while in principle lack of progress doesn't guarantee failure, a comparison to the Manhattan Project is stylistic bullshit.

6 comments

tgv

Reply
throw0101c  2 hours ago

> Then again, there are enough examples of failed projects. Why should this be comparable to the Manhattan project? In 1944, it was only two years underway, whereas Shor's algorithm is over 30.

1944 is a bit arbitrary. Szilard for one was thinking about it earlier:

> […] He conceived the nuclear chain reaction in 1933, and patented the idea in 1936. In late 1939 he wrote the letter for Albert Einstein's signature that resulted in the Manhattan Project that built the atomic bomb….

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Szilard

Partly inspired in 1932 by reading Wells' book, published in 1914:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Set_Free

How long was humanity thinking about flying before the Wright brothers and 1903? We had Babbage's analytical engine (and Lovelace) in 1837, with Zuse's Z2 and the British bombes both in 1940; Zuse's Z3 in 1941.

sanxiyn  6 hours ago

The main point is that just as you can't ask for tiny nuclear explosion because nuclear physics just doesn't work that way, you also can't ask for factoring of 21 with Shor's algorithm. Quantum computing just doesn't work that way, sorry.

  • Revanche1367  5 hours ago

    The analogy between nuclear fission and quantum computing doesn’t really work. Fission was a relatively new physical phenomenon the Manhattan Project scientists were studying to turn it into a weapon of mass destruction on a scale that too had no precedent except in natural disasters. Quantum computing is a new technology that is supposed to make already effectively computable problems computable faster; it is ideally supposed to provide an increase in capacity, not capability. It should definitely be able to make tiny computations work before going for the bigger problems. That’s how all computing works, if it can’t solve simple problems, it’s never going to solve bigger ones. What you’re saying here essentially sounds like “there will be a magical event one day when quantum computing solves the biggest computing problems and we’ll all realize it works.”

    I am not particularly invested either which way about the likelihood of quantum computing being a major breakthrough or not but this is seeming like yet one more area of computing research like crypto and LLMs which in recent years is increasingly being flooded by people on a hype train.