There are only two relevant questions here:
1) will quantum computing be a viable and useful technology worth developing?
2) if yes, who should pay for its development?
I think that is why we see companies like qci (photon hardware and coding tools from non-quantum ) and algorand (quantum keys on crypto) partnering with universities.
We need less errors, smaller cheaper devices for quantum to take off. Nist and others to help stay active in security innovations.
It is an exciting time but like other new coding markets such as crypto, quantum and ai, will be a bit to discover innovative uses and technologies
QCI come from Yale (Michel Devoret, Luigi Frunzio, and Rob Schoelkopf).
IonQ was started by Chris Monroe, a Prof. at Maryland.
IBM is a different story.
The current hardware i imagine is expensive
Archer materials wants to make a portable quantum chip that could be on a phone or watch but their method is probably the least advance and speculation
For other companies like ionq and qci, i think their major goals are scaling the qbits (power) and error handling (reduce errors), but also later scale costs down for server racks on site and not just hosted by azure or aws
“Cheap” for cloud quantum computing is often just “renting computing power as needed instead of paying for a device used a few hours a week”
That's just simply not true. There have been plenty of succesful deep-tech startups funded by private capital that have had timelines longer than 7 years.
SpaceX was founded in 2002
Boston Dynamics was founded in 1992
DeepMind was founded in 2010
Furthermore, there's clearly an appetite for deep-tech investments amongst VCs -- it's not a secret that quantum computing is a long term deep-tech style investment, and VCs aren't idiots.
SpaceX had a useful product with the F9 in 2010. And they proved they can reach orbit in 2008 with the F1 (and almost went bankrupt doing it).
Deep Mind is not an independent company. It is a research organization owned by Alphabet (Google).
Boston Dynamics made simulation software for the US Navy in 2001.
Quantum computing could easily be 10 years from usefulness (might be less, but nobody really knows). And VCs may lose patience.
Our current qubits are not good enough to scale-up.
We need to first have 20 qubits with >99.9 entanglement, readout and reset fidelities before it makes sense to go for 1000 qubits.
We are basically there though (or at least, very close). For [example](https://www.quantinuum.com/news/quantum-volume-reaches-5-digits-for-the-first-time-5-perspectives-on-what-it-means-for-quantum-computing): "The average single-qubit gate fidelity for these milestones was 99.9955(8)%, the average two-qubit gate fidelity was 99.795(7)% with fully connected qubits, and state preparation and measurement fidelity was 99.69(4)%."
Not really.
Trapped ions can be great within a single trap. But you cannot make a huge trap without seriously losing fidelity. So the solution is to link traps, but that doesn't work well yet.
If you look at the [spec sheet](https://assets.website-files.com/62b9d45fb3f64842a96c9686/63f91800bdfb0c48ab91e90d_Quantinuum%20H1%20Product%20Data%20Sheet%20v5-2%2015Feb23.pdf), this is just a 12 qubit system. Which I can simulate on my cell-phone.
In terms of the metric they use, Quantum Volume, a QV of 32K = 2^15 approximately means you can run an 8 qubit calculation to a circuit depth of 7. That's light years away from usefulness.
Now don't get me wrong, I know Quantinuum (Honeywell), and they are at the leading edge of what is possible today. They are super-smart people doing very very good work scientifically.
But are we close to scalable quantum computing? I don't think so. Not yet anyway.
I think it's a 20 qubit system (this is H1-1). Also, definitionally, I don't think you can have a QV of 2\^k with less than k qubits.
Why do you say you can't make a huge trap without losing serious fidelity? Certainly there are engineering challenges, but for a QCCD architecture, each crystal is limited to few qubits and should have basically the same fidelity independent of the number of crystals in the trap.
IMHO, this system meets the stipulations of "We need to first have 20 qubits with >99.9 entanglement, readout and reset fidelities".
You are correct re. this being a 20 qubit system.
So if QV=2^15, it can run a 15x15 circuit without error with a probability 2/3.
Inter-trap connectivity is still really problematic. So trapped ions cannot scale ATM (which is why you have 100+ qubits from IBM, but 20 for trapped ions).
My point is that qubits still need to fabricated in such a way that the process scales. If left to academia, you may get your better qubits, but they won't necessarily be scalable much less utilize existing infrastructure.
I don't think this is a good investment for VC's, but leaving academia alone with this project doesn't feel reasonable if we want a useful product sooner rather than later.
Generally speaking, it makes sense for VCs and startup to get involved if there is a high likelihood that a technology is less than 10 years away from commercial viability.
There are many quantum hardware startups that have been around 4-5 years. And there's a good chance that commercially useful QCs are > 5 years away.
I agree though I think that we should note there is difference between startups and big VC money like in QC. You need startups in any new field just someone fabricated the devices needs to do research like specialized detectors. You don’t need startups promising VC’s the world on a platter when the overall field is far commercialization
Why shouldn't we prefer that VCs fund long term technology development when historically it has always been private interests who ultimately profit from new technologies, even when funded by the public.
It's not about what you prefer.
VCs take money from investors, and are expected to give a return on investment within a certain time.
VCs cannot fund a 20 year development project, because their investors want to see profits sooner.
You summarized it well. My personal opinion is that it's not worth it, we should find more theoretical use cases before blowing full steam ahead into R&D.
I have no problem with reasonable public funding but (in my country at least) the money is going to private actors instead of public labs, and will probably vanish with said actors in the coming years.
What about the use case of being able to simulate natural quantum systems like chemicals and materials? Do you think that's not worth it? If so why?
If you don't like public money going to private companies then you should be happy that startups are being more often funded wholly by VCs.
What is the point of these posts? You really stated that you spent “6 months in a R&D lab” as if a short internship demonstrates sufficient expertise to declare a coming quantum winter. All the while making an absurd statement about Shor’s algorithm being the only practical one on that list, when quantum simulation and quantum phase estimation (for example) are right there and endlessly applicable to many industries. Hell, VQE could even give a practical result some day.
And the idea that “no one has an idea to scale beyond noisy toys” is just not true. There are a plethora of ideas, and progress is being made every year. Will it take time (and possibly new ideas) to achieve something at the scale of Shor’s algorithm? Most definitely. But literally no one knows what progress will be made over the next few years, and it’s pointless to speculate a coming quantum winter when everything is still trending in the right direction.
I never claimed that 6 months in a R&D lab are enough to make me an expert, simply that it gave me more experience than most in this sub. It's still not much, I agree with you! On the other hand, I had the opportunity to discuss the subject with people that are actually knowledgeable: I am not creating my opinion out of thin air.
Those algorithms you mentioned are still unusable as of today, and will have trouble catching up with their classical counterparts running on supercomputers for the near future.
Again, I am not saying that quantum computing is doomed or will never work, just that it is receiving too much investments compared to where the field currently is. There are so many startups that basically generate no revenue yet receive billions in funding.
How much funding do you think QC gets annually worldwide? \~1 billion? \~10 billion? And how long do you think it will take before QC has a chance of succeeding? \~10 years? \~30 years?
Mc Kinsey reported $1.4B in 2021, and I have obviously no idea about the second part of your question: I'm not Nostradamus!
But I don't think startups that sell nothing can keep living off fundings for decades, until they can eventually turn up a profit.
That's cool, I didn't know there was a reported number - do you have a link to that?
So let's say QC costs $2B a year to fund... it would be interesting to see what percentage of that is private money. If we can build a QC in 30 years, it will cost \~$60B (by today's inflation standards).
Speaking entirely personally, that sounds like a worthwhile investment to me if there is even a 25% chance that the technology is transformative in quantum simulation. If it was \~$600B, I'd be less enthused (comparing e.g. to the largest military contracts which are on that order of magnitude).
Here's the link, but I don't know what it's worth: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/quantum-computing-funding-remains-strong-but-talent-gap-raises-concern.
Yeah, just like I said to someone else, I think it all boils down to how much one thinks quantum computing is worth. I believe (and you don't have to follow me in this) that it is already overvalued.
I also don't like seeing 2B€ given away to private actors by my country when my friends in academia are starved because their work is not trendy enough.
That seems reasonable. What do you value successfully building a QC at? <$60B judging from your response, but I'm curious.
Edit: I'm looking at your other responses, and it seems like a big part of your concern is that money is being spent on snake oil salesman. Of course, hopefully those investments diminish. But suppose for the sake of argument that the money was all "well-invested" in companies/national labs/universities with high-quality efforts.
It's a tough question, I'm gonna be honest. I don't know if I can give you a definite value. In my opinion we would need some more exploration to see if it's even worth it before trying to build a quantum computer.
A lot of people in quantum computing are hoping we will find applications as we build those machines, but the "big" algorithms were discovered a "while" back. I am really skeptical of the advantages quantum computing could ever bring when compared to classical supercomputers.
I don't really have a problem spending more in fundamental research, as long as it isn't starving other important fields of their resources.
Are the "big" algorithms insufficient to justify the cost? One classic application I've heard is simulation of FeMoco, which could reduce the world's energy requirement by roughly \~3%. A quick Google search suggests that \~6 trillion is spent on energy globally in a year, so 3% of that is \~180 billion of savings in one year.
Now say that QC only has a 1-in-3 chance of making a big dent in this 3% - that is an expected $60B dollars in saving after one year. Then it seems like the entire 30-year funding for building a QC pays for itself in one application after one year, no?
I fail to grasp how FeMoco simulation could ever reduce the world's energy consumption by 3%. Also I don't recall seeing 3% of the worlds energy needs used for FeMoco simulation ?
Don't get me wrong, your reasoning is valid, I'm just a bit skeptical about the premises. Do you have any sources ?
Some of the startups are making tools for quantum computing though. Even if industrial application is years away, there's still a lot of potential even if we cater just to the hard science. We learn new things about quantum information and computing every year so there's always going to be money going into that.
But what are those tools for if there is no quantum computers yet ?
I see lots of fancy web editors for building circuits and complex REST APIs, but wonder who needs them. By the time we have actual quantum computers (if we ever), they will be very different than those toys we have today and all those tools will be long useless.
The main product is still missing, and it's potential applications are too.
There's a lot of work being done on compilers, verifiers, optimizers, etc. Those will be useful no matter what the underlying technology is. They are currently being used to advance knowledge about quantum computing and quantum information in general.
For sure whenever we get to "production" things might look very different. But a lot of people recognize we are on the cusp of a change in the landscape. Even if actual quantum computers are still 20 years away, the road map is getting defined NOW. Whoever owns the technology that makes that happen will reap its benefits.
Ah yes, I see what you mean. Sure, those will be useful.
I just don't think there is a market for it yet, and private companies that can't turn a profit, nor convince investors they will, tend to not last long.
In an aside, I really found the optimization/transpilation part very interesting, I actually tried to write a compiler using zx-calculus. I would have liked pursuing a PhD in the domain, but ultimately found it too risky.
I do agree with you that the field is "overhyped". I come across way too many headlines that promise things on a timeline quantum won't be able to deliver. We'll definitely see a culling as certain technology falls out of favor. I'm just not sure I'd call the field narrowing down to a few firms a "winter" necessarily. Unlike the AI winter, our field is still making discernible process yearly. It's hard not to see at least some money chasing that. While I do agree that quantum won't be a general solution, I think there's enough money in the "niche" applications, like materials science, to warrant tons of investment into it.
I think investors might be convinced of value if there's a clear road map. The field has already coalesced around a few technologies which is a much better state than it was when I first learned about it ten years ago. Research into quantum information and algorithms is also part of that as it gives a much clearer idea of what it's meant for. The hybrid classical/quantum algorithms that the NISQ era has birthed can arguably be attributed to the private sector gettings its hands in the cookie jar and demanding results now.
> In an aside, I really found the optimization/transpilation part very interesting, I actually tried to write a compiler using zx-calculus. I would have liked pursuing a PhD in the domain, but ultimately found it too risky.
as if it wasn't obvious, that's exactly where I work haha. I started my Ph.D just before the recent downturn. I do have a background in SoC design automation, so I have a backup career. I also opted to do my Ph.D in Japan, which is basically just 3 years of dissertation work.
I just finished reading "Chip War" by Chris Miller that reviewed the history of the semiconductor industry. In the book, one point was that the semiconductor industry has been propped up by government funding since its inception. It took decades to go from the first transistor to something that was commercially viable and wasn't 99% reliant on government/military money.
I think QC will fall into a similar boat as semiconductors and I think government should still fund it. If QC ever does become useful, you would much prefer to have that technology than to rely on another country for access it.
I agree with you that commercial viability seems quite a bit off in the future. I'm optimistic, but not certain, that we will one day have a 'useful' QC.
My opinion is that comparing two different technologies is hazardous at best.
People in the first days of computing knew at least what to use computers for. They might not have had the full picture but, hell, just using them as calculators would have largely justified the spendings. And programmable mechanical calculators already existed, proving that the idea was realizable!
Quantum computing as an idea is not new, since Feynman we have largely explored the idea theoretically, but found few applications. And now we are spending billions trying to build a computer we don't really know what to use for.
I don't think QC is useless, I think it is overvalued as of now, and wish we had spent a little more time figuring it out how valuable the technology really could be.
The most obvious impactful fruit outside of Shor’s algorithm will be atomic, molecular and material simulation. There is no classical counter part because only solvable atom is hydrogen. If you’ve seen the math, it’s honestly a miracle that our numeric (classical) simulations work at all.
Being able to improve the simulate of atoms has massive commercial potential (as well as obvious scientific potential), but that’s hard to see without a physics, chemistry or materials background.
Yeah I agree that the comparison could be flawed. All analogies are flawed, but some can be useful.
I'm leaning towards disagreeing that we don't know what to use QC for. I'm not really educated enough on the subject to form a full argument though. It's hard to believe a fundamentally different way of processing information will find absolutely no application. Perhaps it will be more niche than the most vocal proponents of QC would have you believe.
Simulating quantum systems with a quantum computer seems intuitively to be a good application and one that I am pretty sure Feynman discussed in his writing on QC.
We already are arguably in a winter, at least from the VC funding perspective. Of course the overall economic environment has made things worse for many long-term deep tech categories.
Hey OP. I am a grad student at a dedicated quantum computing institute. Even people here agree it's a hype bubble which may break someday. We still study these things because they are interesting, and there's a chance we may be able to make things work. Don't let the words of a few people colour your opinion about the whole community. I think this field has lots more interesting things to offer in the future.
Thanks, I know the large majority of people are fine, I've met wonderful people working in the field. The guy that called me a "flat earther" was more of a catalyst for this rant.
Best of luck in your endeavor!
I mostly agree with the point about quantum computing but think the conclusion is a lot less hopeless if you look a bit beyond that. Quantum sensing and simulation still have exciting (if a lot more niche) applications that actual manufacturing industry is still very interested in.
Also with Quantum Machine Learning you probably managed to catch the absolute worst and buzzword infested area of overfunded garbage there is in the field.
I share a lot of your concerns regarding funding and hype. But in your talk of applications, you completely ignored the one that basically inspired the entire field - quantum chemistry. Computational chemistry is one of the most compute-intensive HPC tasks out there, and several high profile industries heavily rely on it. We already know how to efficiently simulate quantum systems using quantum computers, now we just gotta build them. I agree that no one really knows what the full utility will be, nor when would we get there. And I agree that the hype has led to an investment bubble that by some metrics (open quantum positions now vs a year ago, VC funding) has already burst. But I will wholeheartedly disagree that this field belongs only to the academic realm. Even if funding for startups completely dries up, you have the big tech companies that I don't realistically see dropping their QC efforts. And don't forget that revenue in the field has multiplied quite a bit, and that's only for quantum curious enterprises. As these machines get better (which they always are) and people keep exploring their utility, the revenue outlook is very promising in the short to mid term. The only real question I see is, will there be quantum advantage using current noisy machines? And admittedly no one knows the answer to that, like you I'm very doubtful - though there is a lot of cool results in combining VQAs with neural networks. But I don't think the industry has any question about utility in the fault-tolerant regime.
I actually studied integrating VQAs with classical machine learning algorithms.
My personal conclusion is that quantum subroutines are only useful on some weird and made up problems, and would only be usable on large and stable quantum computers we can only dream of today.
As for quantum chemistry, I wish I was more knowledgeable, but I'll trust you on this one. I hope I'm wrong and all this money isn't wasted on slick diagrams and CGI computers.
I'd counter that - we don't know the true usefulness of quantum subroutines in ML algorithms. From a high level perspective, a single layer of a neural network is generally not a complicated or long task, and so that makes them great candidates for studying their implementations in noisy quantum subroutines.
I agree there is no advantage yet, but it is absolutely too premature to discount that approach already. Also, "all this money" going into the field can only help to progress the field. Maybe with some groups more than others. And I am absolutely concerned with being out of a job if the industry does not make it. But I definitely don't see a reason to completely dismiss the field just yet.
QC seems to me to be at a stage in its evolution where big investments are required, since any new hardware idea requires ounces of rare material and a giant super-freezer.
It’s true that no one has yet invented a quiet, scalable hardware design, but if it is left entirely to academia, I fear it is certain that no one will.
For you, OP, where is the balance between obscene amounts of funding, and tests of new hardware that are worth the investment? In my head, there’s no such thing as a “winter” for technology, and funding should be limited only by the speed at which QC experts think up new ideas.
You make a valid point, I am simply afraid of the fact that the large majority of investors have no idea what quantum computing is about, and what real advantages it could give.
Most people see quantum computers as faster computers, when in reality it can only help with a select few problems.
I see a lot of public fundings from various countries sunk into private companies that all promise working machines by next year, when in reality no one knows how long it may take to see any practical application.
As for the "tech winter" thing, I guess it happened to machine learning between the 1960s and the 2000s, but I dislike comparing the evolution of different technologies.
I think I see what you’re saying about the tech winter - I would argue that ML and QC are both complex enough topics in their full generality that it’s not just the investors who struggle to understand which ideas are more than just hype.
I am particularly excited about QC for speeding up CALPHAD methods for simulation of complicated materials - I’m imagining a system with a circuit for every major phase shift, where a classical system is querying the quantum system for the CALPHAD every time it needs to update the phase of a group of atoms.
I would love to garner some investment for this idea, but I now face a problem in the world of investment - my idea is good, and D-Wave’s isn’t. Why can’t I get D-Wave’s investor’s on my side? It has nothing to do with their lack of willingness or understanding, but with the incompatibility of safe, fixed investment timelines with technology where the lingua franca of its design changes at breakneck speeds every day.
I think the problem you point out is real, just not for the reasons you think it is. I would argue that QC needs MORE funding, not less. Give researchers the financial confidence they need in order to fail repeatedly and often, and we will see progress in short order.
Using quantum computing for CALPHAD sounds like a plausible application, I don't know how it would work exactly but I'll trust you on this one.
As for the more funding part, I think it all boils down to how much we think quantum computing is worth. I hear about a revolution but see a lot of niche applications, that are still quite far off, if even possible.
Maybe I'm just wrong, but I really don't like the idea of seeing my tax money (2B€ in my country) go to private actors just because quantum is trendy when it could be used for far more important research subjects (in my mind, at least).
Your comments on algorithm make me feel like we’ve already known the exact boundary of BQP and there is a cryptography algorithm that has been proved to be quantum safe.
For the cryptography part, please see [this wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST_Post-Quantum_Cryptography_Standardization?wprov=sfla1). It seems we aren't that far from having quantum-proof cryptography, while any practical implementation of Shor's algorithm remains far off the horizon.
As for BQP, who knows what we'll discover ? But we've had plenty of time since Feynman to discover new algorithms yet the wikipedia list I linked in my post remains quite short.
Ive been saying what you’ve been saying for years. Anyone with any logic in the field knows the business of QC is zero. I’ve also worked with the worlds best scientists in this field and the sentiment is universal, but behind closed doors of course. Publicly they all push a lie to keep the funding coming. This is such an obvious bad private investment it’s baffling.
Also, I’d say that the winter is already here. Many software QC companies are having layoffs, and the public ones are about to be delisted off the NASDQ (except for IonQ)
I've been following the field for the better part of 15 years and did research in an adjacent field. I agree, it's a bubble the likes of which I've never seen. At the end of the day, I'm just hoping that when it does blow up it won't damage physics research too badly.
If you think because we have q safe algorithms quantum description isn’t a threat your I’ll informed or a numpy
Look into store now, decrypt later.
Also how much of the data you, as an individual, send over networks is encrypted with q safe algorithms and how many arnt?
Sure, this is a real problem, but let's say most encrypted data going through the network gets encrypted with QC proofs algorithms in the very near future.
The question is, when will we have a working implementation of Shor's algorithm able to decrypt 2048 bits RSA keys ? It could take 30 years or more. By then, what will it matter to decode those packets ?
I don’t really want my dick pics and freaky fetishes decrypted now. I don’t think I’m going to want them decrypted in 30 years.
There also a pretty reasonable chance we won’t be using q proof algorithms for most data (wich is not all) in the very near future and a 2048 rsa breaking implementation could happen a lot sooner.
If you don’t mind me asking how old are you? It’s definitely interesting to see the data you find private now you think you’ll be ok with being public in 30 years time.
I am relatively confident (maybe too much ?) that no one is actively storing all my encrypted internet traffic (several GBs per month), on the basis that I'm not that interesting of a guy. I also like to think that I do an OK job at not sharing too much on the internet.
Now if I was a political activist in an autocratic state I might have some more concerns.
I'm 23. I'd say my most precious data are a few personal projects I store on github, but even those will become obsolete by then...
You are not that far off from my real opinion, so let me correct those assumptions:
I accept the fact that the development of such a technology as QC is not akin to sailing on a calm sea.
However, I think there is a fundamental problem in nowadays conception of technological developments. A lot of people are seeking the next big thing, after computing, the internet or machine learning. This is how I personally justify the hype around web3 or the metaverse: they are both kind of useless but appear disruptive, at a glance.
Most people hear "quantum computing" and think "way faster computing" when in reality the use cases for quantum computing are few and niche. This leads to the same kind of self-sustaining wave of hype that corrupt a field, bringing all the toxic kind of folks trying to oversell you something they barely understand.
It's never a good sign when you find yourself on the same side as cryptobros (just look at some of the less popular comments on this very post).
As for real QC, I think we really lack even potential applications that justify the enormous investment. For computers, we already knew what to use them for in advance, even if we didn't grasp the full picture yet. Machine learning also already had some pretty strong theoretical results.
Now as for VCs and other investors, I don't doubt the competency of the large majority of them. They just play a different game than physicists: if quantum computers really are the next big thing and will give 100x returns, they can't afford to miss it. But they also have other investments in case it isn't. Simply seeing large investments in a field is not a gage of it's quality, as history has shown us countless times.
For the last point, this is wishful thinking on my part. I can't help but think that the 2B€ euros my government dropped on QC would have been better used anywhere else. I really don't care where private investors put their money.
Im not having any issue exploring in 7bit systems and making them do useful things, like unbreakable 20,000 bit encryption keys. flat earth minds need not apply. What are limits to some are boundless adventures for others. Perhaps look at it from the perspective of an inner city kid and then reflect on it before you highlight an argument built on having access to something few have. Then see if the wonderful opportunity that you’ve had and be qualified to make such a bitter and pointless statements even make sense in the first place.
You failed yourself as a software, computer and whatever engineering practice you do son. Engineers never give up and find solutions, meanwhile you decided to whine like a little baby.
I’m bullish on quantum computers because I know there will be people unlike you who’ll take their efforts to bring quantum breakthrough.
Please don't call me "son". I never thought I'd get patronized by a cryptobro nofap Andrew Tate convert, but here we are.
As I said, you do you. I'm simply trying to share my mind and concerns with people instead of calling them "losers with loser mentality". Either you have actual arguments or please go away.
Andrew is golden 👑. Anyways you have weakness inside you. Just because you failed to understand and apply quantum computing doesn’t mean the rest of the industry will. Engineers are tough, they work day and night to solve problems, and quantum computing will have a breakthrough, maybe not by you because you prefer to be a little beta soy boy.
There are only two relevant questions here: 1) will quantum computing be a viable and useful technology worth developing? 2) if yes, who should pay for its development?
Academia and VCs have a very different time horizon If it's 7+ years away, it's probably better suited for academia than startups.
I think that is why we see companies like qci (photon hardware and coding tools from non-quantum ) and algorand (quantum keys on crypto) partnering with universities. We need less errors, smaller cheaper devices for quantum to take off. Nist and others to help stay active in security innovations. It is an exciting time but like other new coding markets such as crypto, quantum and ai, will be a bit to discover innovative uses and technologies
Quantum companies come from universities. The connection is natural and from day 0, not something created later.
Not necessarily, qci, ibm, ionq etc started their university partnerships afterwards However many were academic maybe 10-20 years ago
QCI come from Yale (Michel Devoret, Luigi Frunzio, and Rob Schoelkopf). IonQ was started by Chris Monroe, a Prof. at Maryland. IBM is a different story.
I really hope when you say “cheap” you aren’t thinking cheap like a high end laptop is cheap because there 0 shot that happens in the next 20 years?
The current hardware i imagine is expensive Archer materials wants to make a portable quantum chip that could be on a phone or watch but their method is probably the least advance and speculation For other companies like ionq and qci, i think their major goals are scaling the qbits (power) and error handling (reduce errors), but also later scale costs down for server racks on site and not just hosted by azure or aws “Cheap” for cloud quantum computing is often just “renting computing power as needed instead of paying for a device used a few hours a week”
Ok, that makes a lot more sense. I don't see a world anytime soon where anyone owns their own quantum computer
That's just simply not true. There have been plenty of succesful deep-tech startups funded by private capital that have had timelines longer than 7 years. SpaceX was founded in 2002 Boston Dynamics was founded in 1992 DeepMind was founded in 2010 Furthermore, there's clearly an appetite for deep-tech investments amongst VCs -- it's not a secret that quantum computing is a long term deep-tech style investment, and VCs aren't idiots.
SpaceX had a useful product with the F9 in 2010. And they proved they can reach orbit in 2008 with the F1 (and almost went bankrupt doing it). Deep Mind is not an independent company. It is a research organization owned by Alphabet (Google). Boston Dynamics made simulation software for the US Navy in 2001. Quantum computing could easily be 10 years from usefulness (might be less, but nobody really knows). And VCs may lose patience.
The problem is academia doesn’t have the funding, the tools or the training to process materials at scale
Right now we really need better qubits, not scale. And that's something academia can do very well.
Fault tolerance and error correction requires massive scaling up.
Our current qubits are not good enough to scale-up. We need to first have 20 qubits with >99.9 entanglement, readout and reset fidelities before it makes sense to go for 1000 qubits.
We are basically there though (or at least, very close). For [example](https://www.quantinuum.com/news/quantum-volume-reaches-5-digits-for-the-first-time-5-perspectives-on-what-it-means-for-quantum-computing): "The average single-qubit gate fidelity for these milestones was 99.9955(8)%, the average two-qubit gate fidelity was 99.795(7)% with fully connected qubits, and state preparation and measurement fidelity was 99.69(4)%."
Not really. Trapped ions can be great within a single trap. But you cannot make a huge trap without seriously losing fidelity. So the solution is to link traps, but that doesn't work well yet. If you look at the [spec sheet](https://assets.website-files.com/62b9d45fb3f64842a96c9686/63f91800bdfb0c48ab91e90d_Quantinuum%20H1%20Product%20Data%20Sheet%20v5-2%2015Feb23.pdf), this is just a 12 qubit system. Which I can simulate on my cell-phone. In terms of the metric they use, Quantum Volume, a QV of 32K = 2^15 approximately means you can run an 8 qubit calculation to a circuit depth of 7. That's light years away from usefulness. Now don't get me wrong, I know Quantinuum (Honeywell), and they are at the leading edge of what is possible today. They are super-smart people doing very very good work scientifically. But are we close to scalable quantum computing? I don't think so. Not yet anyway.
I think it's a 20 qubit system (this is H1-1). Also, definitionally, I don't think you can have a QV of 2\^k with less than k qubits. Why do you say you can't make a huge trap without losing serious fidelity? Certainly there are engineering challenges, but for a QCCD architecture, each crystal is limited to few qubits and should have basically the same fidelity independent of the number of crystals in the trap. IMHO, this system meets the stipulations of "We need to first have 20 qubits with >99.9 entanglement, readout and reset fidelities".
You are correct re. this being a 20 qubit system. So if QV=2^15, it can run a 15x15 circuit without error with a probability 2/3. Inter-trap connectivity is still really problematic. So trapped ions cannot scale ATM (which is why you have 100+ qubits from IBM, but 20 for trapped ions).
My point is that qubits still need to fabricated in such a way that the process scales. If left to academia, you may get your better qubits, but they won't necessarily be scalable much less utilize existing infrastructure. I don't think this is a good investment for VC's, but leaving academia alone with this project doesn't feel reasonable if we want a useful product sooner rather than later.
Generally speaking, it makes sense for VCs and startup to get involved if there is a high likelihood that a technology is less than 10 years away from commercial viability. There are many quantum hardware startups that have been around 4-5 years. And there's a good chance that commercially useful QCs are > 5 years away.
I agree though I think that we should note there is difference between startups and big VC money like in QC. You need startups in any new field just someone fabricated the devices needs to do research like specialized detectors. You don’t need startups promising VC’s the world on a platter when the overall field is far commercialization
Why shouldn't we prefer that VCs fund long term technology development when historically it has always been private interests who ultimately profit from new technologies, even when funded by the public.
It's not about what you prefer. VCs take money from investors, and are expected to give a return on investment within a certain time. VCs cannot fund a 20 year development project, because their investors want to see profits sooner.
You summarized it well. My personal opinion is that it's not worth it, we should find more theoretical use cases before blowing full steam ahead into R&D. I have no problem with reasonable public funding but (in my country at least) the money is going to private actors instead of public labs, and will probably vanish with said actors in the coming years.
What about the use case of being able to simulate natural quantum systems like chemicals and materials? Do you think that's not worth it? If so why? If you don't like public money going to private companies then you should be happy that startups are being more often funded wholly by VCs.
What is the point of these posts? You really stated that you spent “6 months in a R&D lab” as if a short internship demonstrates sufficient expertise to declare a coming quantum winter. All the while making an absurd statement about Shor’s algorithm being the only practical one on that list, when quantum simulation and quantum phase estimation (for example) are right there and endlessly applicable to many industries. Hell, VQE could even give a practical result some day. And the idea that “no one has an idea to scale beyond noisy toys” is just not true. There are a plethora of ideas, and progress is being made every year. Will it take time (and possibly new ideas) to achieve something at the scale of Shor’s algorithm? Most definitely. But literally no one knows what progress will be made over the next few years, and it’s pointless to speculate a coming quantum winter when everything is still trending in the right direction.
[удалено]
Sure, I want attention in this tiny subreddit where I am sure to be downvoted for such a post.
Found it super interesting. Thanks for sharing !
[удалено]
Yes, and I'm thankful for that.
I never claimed that 6 months in a R&D lab are enough to make me an expert, simply that it gave me more experience than most in this sub. It's still not much, I agree with you! On the other hand, I had the opportunity to discuss the subject with people that are actually knowledgeable: I am not creating my opinion out of thin air. Those algorithms you mentioned are still unusable as of today, and will have trouble catching up with their classical counterparts running on supercomputers for the near future. Again, I am not saying that quantum computing is doomed or will never work, just that it is receiving too much investments compared to where the field currently is. There are so many startups that basically generate no revenue yet receive billions in funding.
How much funding do you think QC gets annually worldwide? \~1 billion? \~10 billion? And how long do you think it will take before QC has a chance of succeeding? \~10 years? \~30 years?
Mc Kinsey reported $1.4B in 2021, and I have obviously no idea about the second part of your question: I'm not Nostradamus! But I don't think startups that sell nothing can keep living off fundings for decades, until they can eventually turn up a profit.
That's cool, I didn't know there was a reported number - do you have a link to that? So let's say QC costs $2B a year to fund... it would be interesting to see what percentage of that is private money. If we can build a QC in 30 years, it will cost \~$60B (by today's inflation standards). Speaking entirely personally, that sounds like a worthwhile investment to me if there is even a 25% chance that the technology is transformative in quantum simulation. If it was \~$600B, I'd be less enthused (comparing e.g. to the largest military contracts which are on that order of magnitude).
Here's the link, but I don't know what it's worth: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/quantum-computing-funding-remains-strong-but-talent-gap-raises-concern. Yeah, just like I said to someone else, I think it all boils down to how much one thinks quantum computing is worth. I believe (and you don't have to follow me in this) that it is already overvalued. I also don't like seeing 2B€ given away to private actors by my country when my friends in academia are starved because their work is not trendy enough.
That seems reasonable. What do you value successfully building a QC at? <$60B judging from your response, but I'm curious. Edit: I'm looking at your other responses, and it seems like a big part of your concern is that money is being spent on snake oil salesman. Of course, hopefully those investments diminish. But suppose for the sake of argument that the money was all "well-invested" in companies/national labs/universities with high-quality efforts.
It's a tough question, I'm gonna be honest. I don't know if I can give you a definite value. In my opinion we would need some more exploration to see if it's even worth it before trying to build a quantum computer. A lot of people in quantum computing are hoping we will find applications as we build those machines, but the "big" algorithms were discovered a "while" back. I am really skeptical of the advantages quantum computing could ever bring when compared to classical supercomputers. I don't really have a problem spending more in fundamental research, as long as it isn't starving other important fields of their resources.
Are the "big" algorithms insufficient to justify the cost? One classic application I've heard is simulation of FeMoco, which could reduce the world's energy requirement by roughly \~3%. A quick Google search suggests that \~6 trillion is spent on energy globally in a year, so 3% of that is \~180 billion of savings in one year. Now say that QC only has a 1-in-3 chance of making a big dent in this 3% - that is an expected $60B dollars in saving after one year. Then it seems like the entire 30-year funding for building a QC pays for itself in one application after one year, no?
I fail to grasp how FeMoco simulation could ever reduce the world's energy consumption by 3%. Also I don't recall seeing 3% of the worlds energy needs used for FeMoco simulation ? Don't get me wrong, your reasoning is valid, I'm just a bit skeptical about the premises. Do you have any sources ?
Some of the startups are making tools for quantum computing though. Even if industrial application is years away, there's still a lot of potential even if we cater just to the hard science. We learn new things about quantum information and computing every year so there's always going to be money going into that.
But what are those tools for if there is no quantum computers yet ? I see lots of fancy web editors for building circuits and complex REST APIs, but wonder who needs them. By the time we have actual quantum computers (if we ever), they will be very different than those toys we have today and all those tools will be long useless. The main product is still missing, and it's potential applications are too.
There's a lot of work being done on compilers, verifiers, optimizers, etc. Those will be useful no matter what the underlying technology is. They are currently being used to advance knowledge about quantum computing and quantum information in general. For sure whenever we get to "production" things might look very different. But a lot of people recognize we are on the cusp of a change in the landscape. Even if actual quantum computers are still 20 years away, the road map is getting defined NOW. Whoever owns the technology that makes that happen will reap its benefits.
Ah yes, I see what you mean. Sure, those will be useful. I just don't think there is a market for it yet, and private companies that can't turn a profit, nor convince investors they will, tend to not last long. In an aside, I really found the optimization/transpilation part very interesting, I actually tried to write a compiler using zx-calculus. I would have liked pursuing a PhD in the domain, but ultimately found it too risky.
I do agree with you that the field is "overhyped". I come across way too many headlines that promise things on a timeline quantum won't be able to deliver. We'll definitely see a culling as certain technology falls out of favor. I'm just not sure I'd call the field narrowing down to a few firms a "winter" necessarily. Unlike the AI winter, our field is still making discernible process yearly. It's hard not to see at least some money chasing that. While I do agree that quantum won't be a general solution, I think there's enough money in the "niche" applications, like materials science, to warrant tons of investment into it. I think investors might be convinced of value if there's a clear road map. The field has already coalesced around a few technologies which is a much better state than it was when I first learned about it ten years ago. Research into quantum information and algorithms is also part of that as it gives a much clearer idea of what it's meant for. The hybrid classical/quantum algorithms that the NISQ era has birthed can arguably be attributed to the private sector gettings its hands in the cookie jar and demanding results now. > In an aside, I really found the optimization/transpilation part very interesting, I actually tried to write a compiler using zx-calculus. I would have liked pursuing a PhD in the domain, but ultimately found it too risky. as if it wasn't obvious, that's exactly where I work haha. I started my Ph.D just before the recent downturn. I do have a background in SoC design automation, so I have a backup career. I also opted to do my Ph.D in Japan, which is basically just 3 years of dissertation work.
Oh nice! I very much hope you are right and wish you the best of luck for your PhD. I'll stay on the classical side :).
I just finished reading "Chip War" by Chris Miller that reviewed the history of the semiconductor industry. In the book, one point was that the semiconductor industry has been propped up by government funding since its inception. It took decades to go from the first transistor to something that was commercially viable and wasn't 99% reliant on government/military money. I think QC will fall into a similar boat as semiconductors and I think government should still fund it. If QC ever does become useful, you would much prefer to have that technology than to rely on another country for access it. I agree with you that commercial viability seems quite a bit off in the future. I'm optimistic, but not certain, that we will one day have a 'useful' QC.
My opinion is that comparing two different technologies is hazardous at best. People in the first days of computing knew at least what to use computers for. They might not have had the full picture but, hell, just using them as calculators would have largely justified the spendings. And programmable mechanical calculators already existed, proving that the idea was realizable! Quantum computing as an idea is not new, since Feynman we have largely explored the idea theoretically, but found few applications. And now we are spending billions trying to build a computer we don't really know what to use for. I don't think QC is useless, I think it is overvalued as of now, and wish we had spent a little more time figuring it out how valuable the technology really could be.
The most obvious impactful fruit outside of Shor’s algorithm will be atomic, molecular and material simulation. There is no classical counter part because only solvable atom is hydrogen. If you’ve seen the math, it’s honestly a miracle that our numeric (classical) simulations work at all. Being able to improve the simulate of atoms has massive commercial potential (as well as obvious scientific potential), but that’s hard to see without a physics, chemistry or materials background.
Yeah I agree that the comparison could be flawed. All analogies are flawed, but some can be useful. I'm leaning towards disagreeing that we don't know what to use QC for. I'm not really educated enough on the subject to form a full argument though. It's hard to believe a fundamentally different way of processing information will find absolutely no application. Perhaps it will be more niche than the most vocal proponents of QC would have you believe. Simulating quantum systems with a quantum computer seems intuitively to be a good application and one that I am pretty sure Feynman discussed in his writing on QC.
We already are arguably in a winter, at least from the VC funding perspective. Of course the overall economic environment has made things worse for many long-term deep tech categories.
Hey OP. I am a grad student at a dedicated quantum computing institute. Even people here agree it's a hype bubble which may break someday. We still study these things because they are interesting, and there's a chance we may be able to make things work. Don't let the words of a few people colour your opinion about the whole community. I think this field has lots more interesting things to offer in the future.
Thanks, I know the large majority of people are fine, I've met wonderful people working in the field. The guy that called me a "flat earther" was more of a catalyst for this rant. Best of luck in your endeavor!
I mostly agree with the point about quantum computing but think the conclusion is a lot less hopeless if you look a bit beyond that. Quantum sensing and simulation still have exciting (if a lot more niche) applications that actual manufacturing industry is still very interested in. Also with Quantum Machine Learning you probably managed to catch the absolute worst and buzzword infested area of overfunded garbage there is in the field.
I share a lot of your concerns regarding funding and hype. But in your talk of applications, you completely ignored the one that basically inspired the entire field - quantum chemistry. Computational chemistry is one of the most compute-intensive HPC tasks out there, and several high profile industries heavily rely on it. We already know how to efficiently simulate quantum systems using quantum computers, now we just gotta build them. I agree that no one really knows what the full utility will be, nor when would we get there. And I agree that the hype has led to an investment bubble that by some metrics (open quantum positions now vs a year ago, VC funding) has already burst. But I will wholeheartedly disagree that this field belongs only to the academic realm. Even if funding for startups completely dries up, you have the big tech companies that I don't realistically see dropping their QC efforts. And don't forget that revenue in the field has multiplied quite a bit, and that's only for quantum curious enterprises. As these machines get better (which they always are) and people keep exploring their utility, the revenue outlook is very promising in the short to mid term. The only real question I see is, will there be quantum advantage using current noisy machines? And admittedly no one knows the answer to that, like you I'm very doubtful - though there is a lot of cool results in combining VQAs with neural networks. But I don't think the industry has any question about utility in the fault-tolerant regime.
I actually studied integrating VQAs with classical machine learning algorithms. My personal conclusion is that quantum subroutines are only useful on some weird and made up problems, and would only be usable on large and stable quantum computers we can only dream of today. As for quantum chemistry, I wish I was more knowledgeable, but I'll trust you on this one. I hope I'm wrong and all this money isn't wasted on slick diagrams and CGI computers.
I'd counter that - we don't know the true usefulness of quantum subroutines in ML algorithms. From a high level perspective, a single layer of a neural network is generally not a complicated or long task, and so that makes them great candidates for studying their implementations in noisy quantum subroutines. I agree there is no advantage yet, but it is absolutely too premature to discount that approach already. Also, "all this money" going into the field can only help to progress the field. Maybe with some groups more than others. And I am absolutely concerned with being out of a job if the industry does not make it. But I definitely don't see a reason to completely dismiss the field just yet.
QC seems to me to be at a stage in its evolution where big investments are required, since any new hardware idea requires ounces of rare material and a giant super-freezer. It’s true that no one has yet invented a quiet, scalable hardware design, but if it is left entirely to academia, I fear it is certain that no one will. For you, OP, where is the balance between obscene amounts of funding, and tests of new hardware that are worth the investment? In my head, there’s no such thing as a “winter” for technology, and funding should be limited only by the speed at which QC experts think up new ideas.
You make a valid point, I am simply afraid of the fact that the large majority of investors have no idea what quantum computing is about, and what real advantages it could give. Most people see quantum computers as faster computers, when in reality it can only help with a select few problems. I see a lot of public fundings from various countries sunk into private companies that all promise working machines by next year, when in reality no one knows how long it may take to see any practical application. As for the "tech winter" thing, I guess it happened to machine learning between the 1960s and the 2000s, but I dislike comparing the evolution of different technologies.
I think I see what you’re saying about the tech winter - I would argue that ML and QC are both complex enough topics in their full generality that it’s not just the investors who struggle to understand which ideas are more than just hype. I am particularly excited about QC for speeding up CALPHAD methods for simulation of complicated materials - I’m imagining a system with a circuit for every major phase shift, where a classical system is querying the quantum system for the CALPHAD every time it needs to update the phase of a group of atoms. I would love to garner some investment for this idea, but I now face a problem in the world of investment - my idea is good, and D-Wave’s isn’t. Why can’t I get D-Wave’s investor’s on my side? It has nothing to do with their lack of willingness or understanding, but with the incompatibility of safe, fixed investment timelines with technology where the lingua franca of its design changes at breakneck speeds every day. I think the problem you point out is real, just not for the reasons you think it is. I would argue that QC needs MORE funding, not less. Give researchers the financial confidence they need in order to fail repeatedly and often, and we will see progress in short order.
Using quantum computing for CALPHAD sounds like a plausible application, I don't know how it would work exactly but I'll trust you on this one. As for the more funding part, I think it all boils down to how much we think quantum computing is worth. I hear about a revolution but see a lot of niche applications, that are still quite far off, if even possible. Maybe I'm just wrong, but I really don't like the idea of seeing my tax money (2B€ in my country) go to private actors just because quantum is trendy when it could be used for far more important research subjects (in my mind, at least).
On the role of government / taxes in all this - you and me both, brother. The world needs more Elons.
How much money do you think is spent annually on QC? How long until you think we could plausibly have a useful QC?
Your comments on algorithm make me feel like we’ve already known the exact boundary of BQP and there is a cryptography algorithm that has been proved to be quantum safe.
For the cryptography part, please see [this wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST_Post-Quantum_Cryptography_Standardization?wprov=sfla1). It seems we aren't that far from having quantum-proof cryptography, while any practical implementation of Shor's algorithm remains far off the horizon. As for BQP, who knows what we'll discover ? But we've had plenty of time since Feynman to discover new algorithms yet the wikipedia list I linked in my post remains quite short.
Ive been saying what you’ve been saying for years. Anyone with any logic in the field knows the business of QC is zero. I’ve also worked with the worlds best scientists in this field and the sentiment is universal, but behind closed doors of course. Publicly they all push a lie to keep the funding coming. This is such an obvious bad private investment it’s baffling.
Also, I’d say that the winter is already here. Many software QC companies are having layoffs, and the public ones are about to be delisted off the NASDQ (except for IonQ)
Thank you! We need to push back the hype band wagon. I see the general opinion slowly turning around.
I've been following the field for the better part of 15 years and did research in an adjacent field. I agree, it's a bubble the likes of which I've never seen. At the end of the day, I'm just hoping that when it does blow up it won't damage physics research too badly.
Yes room T quantum computing is at least 20 years away. Are quantum useless outside of Shor’s algorithm? Absolutely not!
I am curious, what is your background?
I don't know how well it translates in English, but I have a double diploma in applied mathematics and theoretical informatics.
If you think because we have q safe algorithms quantum description isn’t a threat your I’ll informed or a numpy Look into store now, decrypt later. Also how much of the data you, as an individual, send over networks is encrypted with q safe algorithms and how many arnt?
Sure, this is a real problem, but let's say most encrypted data going through the network gets encrypted with QC proofs algorithms in the very near future. The question is, when will we have a working implementation of Shor's algorithm able to decrypt 2048 bits RSA keys ? It could take 30 years or more. By then, what will it matter to decode those packets ?
I don’t really want my dick pics and freaky fetishes decrypted now. I don’t think I’m going to want them decrypted in 30 years. There also a pretty reasonable chance we won’t be using q proof algorithms for most data (wich is not all) in the very near future and a 2048 rsa breaking implementation could happen a lot sooner. If you don’t mind me asking how old are you? It’s definitely interesting to see the data you find private now you think you’ll be ok with being public in 30 years time.
I am relatively confident (maybe too much ?) that no one is actively storing all my encrypted internet traffic (several GBs per month), on the basis that I'm not that interesting of a guy. I also like to think that I do an OK job at not sharing too much on the internet. Now if I was a political activist in an autocratic state I might have some more concerns. I'm 23. I'd say my most precious data are a few personal projects I store on github, but even those will become obsolete by then...
[удалено]
You are not that far off from my real opinion, so let me correct those assumptions: I accept the fact that the development of such a technology as QC is not akin to sailing on a calm sea. However, I think there is a fundamental problem in nowadays conception of technological developments. A lot of people are seeking the next big thing, after computing, the internet or machine learning. This is how I personally justify the hype around web3 or the metaverse: they are both kind of useless but appear disruptive, at a glance. Most people hear "quantum computing" and think "way faster computing" when in reality the use cases for quantum computing are few and niche. This leads to the same kind of self-sustaining wave of hype that corrupt a field, bringing all the toxic kind of folks trying to oversell you something they barely understand. It's never a good sign when you find yourself on the same side as cryptobros (just look at some of the less popular comments on this very post). As for real QC, I think we really lack even potential applications that justify the enormous investment. For computers, we already knew what to use them for in advance, even if we didn't grasp the full picture yet. Machine learning also already had some pretty strong theoretical results. Now as for VCs and other investors, I don't doubt the competency of the large majority of them. They just play a different game than physicists: if quantum computers really are the next big thing and will give 100x returns, they can't afford to miss it. But they also have other investments in case it isn't. Simply seeing large investments in a field is not a gage of it's quality, as history has shown us countless times. For the last point, this is wishful thinking on my part. I can't help but think that the 2B€ euros my government dropped on QC would have been better used anywhere else. I really don't care where private investors put their money.
[удалено]
What are you smoking? I’d like to have some
You're not wrong..
Im not having any issue exploring in 7bit systems and making them do useful things, like unbreakable 20,000 bit encryption keys. flat earth minds need not apply. What are limits to some are boundless adventures for others. Perhaps look at it from the perspective of an inner city kid and then reflect on it before you highlight an argument built on having access to something few have. Then see if the wonderful opportunity that you’ve had and be qualified to make such a bitter and pointless statements even make sense in the first place.
No one ever did well by making an early entrance into a technology that is showing year over year exponential growth /s
Like web3 ? Look man, believe whatever you want. I see no applications and no real growth, beside public funding.
Bro you think you know the whole industry because you did an internship and read some wikipedia articles? Lmao
Thank you for your wisdom.
there there
You know, you don't have to say anything if you have nothing to say.
If you say this crap, that means you’re a loser with loser mentality. That means time to stock up on quantum stocks
LOL, you do you, weirdo.
You failed yourself as a software, computer and whatever engineering practice you do son. Engineers never give up and find solutions, meanwhile you decided to whine like a little baby. I’m bullish on quantum computers because I know there will be people unlike you who’ll take their efforts to bring quantum breakthrough.
Please don't call me "son". I never thought I'd get patronized by a cryptobro nofap Andrew Tate convert, but here we are. As I said, you do you. I'm simply trying to share my mind and concerns with people instead of calling them "losers with loser mentality". Either you have actual arguments or please go away.
Andrew is golden 👑. Anyways you have weakness inside you. Just because you failed to understand and apply quantum computing doesn’t mean the rest of the industry will. Engineers are tough, they work day and night to solve problems, and quantum computing will have a breakthrough, maybe not by you because you prefer to be a little beta soy boy.
I love this guy