Nvidia CEO Huang Says He Was Wrong About Timeline For Quantum (cnbc.com) 22
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang on Thursday walked back comments he made in January, when he cast doubt on whether useful quantum computers would hit the market in the next 15 years. From a report: At Nvidia's "Quantum Day" event, part of the company's annual GTC Conference, Huang admitted that his comments came out wrong. "This is the first event in history where a company CEO invites all of the guests to explain why he was wrong," Huang said.
In January, Huang sent quantum computing stocks reeling when he said 15 years was "on the early side" in considering how long it would be before the technology would be useful. He said at the time that 20 years was a timeframe that "a whole bunch of us would believe." In his opening comments on Thursday, Huang drew comparisons between pre-revenue quantum companies and Nvidia's early days. He said it took over 20 years for Nvidia to build out its software and hardware business.
He also expressed surprise that his comments were able to move markets, and joked he didn't know that certain quantum computing companies were publicly traded. "How could a quantum computer company be public?" Huang said.
In January, Huang sent quantum computing stocks reeling when he said 15 years was "on the early side" in considering how long it would be before the technology would be useful. He said at the time that 20 years was a timeframe that "a whole bunch of us would believe." In his opening comments on Thursday, Huang drew comparisons between pre-revenue quantum companies and Nvidia's early days. He said it took over 20 years for Nvidia to build out its software and hardware business.
He also expressed surprise that his comments were able to move markets, and joked he didn't know that certain quantum computing companies were publicly traded. "How could a quantum computer company be public?" Huang said.
Looking for that next bubble (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
TFA also doesn't quote him as giving some different timeline that he now claims is more realistic. I infer the original timeline is still a reasonable assessment.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, this seemed more a financial face-saving move than a change in timeline estimates.
Re: (Score:3)
His estimate is on the extreme low end. Without some extraordinary developments, there is no chance to get actually useful QCs in that timeframe.
From the link chain (Score:2)
Huang’s “comments may not be totally off-base for gate model quantum computers, well, they are 100% off base for annealing quantum computers,”
Annealing quantum computers would still be quite useful if they were invented, but this response doesn't present any evidence or reasoning why.
Still, Nvidia CEO didn't present any data or reasoning to support his opinion, and a response without evidence is a match for an opinion without data.
My prediction (Score:2)
My prediction is that quantum computers, if they ever become useful, will be so different from what we expect them to be as to render all theories about their capabilities false. They won't break encryption or factor primes in polynomial time. Indeed, I predict the most useful outcome of quantum computers will be the discovery of errors in quantum theory, and the resulting reformulation of quantum physics theory to resolve those errors.
Re: (Score:3)
Annealing QCs are basically worthless. D-Wave has them, they work, and all they can do can be done a lot cheaper on classical computers.
dump and pump (Score:2)
More like he dumped all over the quantum stocks, watched gleefully when they fell, and then had Nvidia invest in them to pump them up after he made the comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What's more interesting is that even though he's not an expert in quantum computing, his statements held a lot of weight among investors. Dunning Kruger comes to mind.
Indeed. Investors are quite often clueless about what they invest in. The pathetic thing is that even completely vaporous products (which QCs are mostly at this time) can get you huge profits.
Re: (Score:1)
What's more interesting is that even though he's not an expert in quantum computing, his statements held a lot of weight among investors. Dunning Kruger comes to mind.
The wealthy worship money. Prosperity theology is real. He must be smart because he's rich! Never mind that all the people who actually made him rich are below him on the org chart.
He was wrong about the time for quantum... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Kinda stupid (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The stock market is a barn filled with chickens. Periodically, someone drops a kernel of corn here or there, Other times someone shouts BOO.
For some reason, we allow our economy to be controlled by the chickens.
He was indeed wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
His estimate was massively on the low side. But apparently he now found that he can make more money lying about it and giving a more optimistic estimate.
In actual reality, QCs have been unter constant research for about 50 years now, and there still is not a single useful instance anywhere, let alone one that can compete with a classical pocket calculator With that, a realistic timeline for QCs that are better than classical computers and actually useful is between 50 years and "never", with the last being actually pretty likely.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. If you did down into all of the breathless claims of "quantum supremacy", it boils down to this quantum computer is (just barely) better at being a quantum computer than this PC on my desk.
The last time I saw any potentially useful computation claimed, the details revealed that it factored a 2 digit number and was only slightly slower than a typical 6th grader with pencil and paper.
As for timeline, QC is much closer to Babbage's nightmare than it is to ENIAC.
GPUs are a culmination, Quantum is a starting poin (Score:2)
Not buying it for a minute (Score:2)
"Didn’t know they were publicly traded"? Come on, Jensen.
It’s hard to believe that the CEO of Nvidia—a company deeply embedded in AI and HPC—didn't realize that some of the quantum companies he dismissed in January were publicly traded. That kind of selective cluelessness strains credulity.
IMHO, Huang’s comments in January weren’t a slip-up, but a calculated move. By downplaying the near-term viability of quantum computing, he may have been trying to cool investor enthusi