back to article JPMorgan latest to pile into quantum upstart with $5B valuation

The wave of generative AI may have captured the world's attention, but that hasn't stopped the flow of capital into quantum computing as JPMorgan Chase and others plow more cash into the emerging tech. The banking giant, along with Mitsui & Co. and Amgen injected $300 million into Honeywell-backed quantum computing startup …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Quantum wooism and computing systems ö

    A qubit can be 1, 0, or both simultaneously, whereas a standard bit can only be one or zero.

    Shurly shomit' wrong here ö

    1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: Quantum wooism and computing systems ö

      It's the sort of nonsense non-explanation we generally see. Ignore it. It does not describe QC in any useful way.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    When it's Spring again ...

    I'll bring again ...

  3. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

    Quantum optimization

    Not my field, by any means, but from what I've read I remain suspicious of Quantum Optimization algorithms. The paper linked in the article talks about QAOA and QVE variants.

    Aaronson described QAOA last year as "a quantum algorithm that, incredibly, for all the hundreds of papers written about it, has not yet been convincingly argued to yield any speedup for any problem whatsoever" (among other issues). Maybe the situation is better now, but I've yet to see any excitement about QAOA from anyone who's not making a career from it.

    As for QVE, early variants, at least, seemed to have various issues that made it impractical in at least most use cases, such as requiring specialized precomputation work for each problem. Some later variants such as EQVE might be better, but again there seems to be a lot of qualification around the actual claims in the actual papers.

    Maybe we'll get to the point where you can use QC and some quantum approximation algorithm to, say, compute eigenvectors with genuine quantum speedup for some problems. That could be useful, sure. Will it be economically viable for, oh, a finance company to do that at any useful scale?

    The thing about QC is that even as we get better at scaling and error correction, the hardware still looks to be wildly expensive for the foreseeable future. For some applications, notably scientific research, that's OK; there are experiments we can't conduct any other way, and we recognize the value in funding primary research. But in business, cost matters.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like