The article mentions that quantum computers are “an order of magnitude” faster than traditional computing. My understanding is that at the moment, this is incorrect: (noise-free) quantum computers are better at certain specific tasks, and otherwise, are no better than classical computers.
The "order of magnitude" statement is completely false.
If we're talking about algorithmic complexity: for some algorithms quantum computers won't be any better than classical ones; for others, the improvement will be exponential, not multiplicative, say from O(eⁿ) to O(n).
If we're talking about actual performance, we have no idea, because there is no general purpose quantum computer yet.
So the mention of "orders of magnitude" belies a complete ignorance of the topic.
Quantum computers will likely be hybridized with classical computers, meaning classical computers will just become really good at processing quantum algorithms as well. It really wouldn’t make sense to have a purely classical or purely quantum computer at the point where both technologies are available.
I can imagine that once (if?) the technology becomes miniaturised enough, we'd end up with a "quantum card" alongside our sound and graphics cards, for specialised processing.
They seem to be costly enough to keep within temperature constraints that what that might actually look like is a quantum room at AWS or whoever that costs $x/hr to access.
> Fully useful quantum computers have the potential to reach computation speeds that are orders of magnitude faster than today’s supercomputers.
It's not talking about the present, where IIUC quantum computers are basically useless for anything but research, not performing as well as classical computers because of noise and shortage of qubits.
I think the crux of the problem lies in the sheer number of students who attend college today; as the author points out:
"It is true that only about 5 percent of the British population attended university in my own student days, ... [today] that figure has risen to around 50 percent..."
The reality is that teaching critical thinking doesn't scale nicely, because it requires an intimate dialogue; the process of rigorously critiquing ideas is a two-way street. In today's institutions, where professors lecture to classes of
200+ students, this simply isn't possible.
In the article, the author claims universities have abandoned their roles as centres of critical thinking due to capitalistic forces. While I think this is true, I also believe that our collective attitude towards university shares the blame. Unfortunately, college is seen as the only legitimate path to success after high school.
If students had more opportunities to explore their interests, instead of being funnelled into university, perhaps universities could re-establish themselves as institutions where critical discussion takes place.
> All of the 'correctness' and 'proofs' are useful for a separate crowd, and should also be included, but in a separate section because they are for a different user, namely, for other academics who are well versed in the domain.
Isn't the audience of an academic paper other academics? Placing proofs and details in a separate section is convenient for the layman but bothersome for the intended audience. Often, it is precisely these details that are important. In mathematics for example, using new methods to give simpler proofs of old theorems is very useful; here, other researchers would care about how particular details are resolved.
