Raw LLM Responses

As a physicist Jensen Huang's opinion is much closer to the truth, the general consensus among most physicists(that are not also startup founders lol) is that quantum computers are a) nowhere near certain to actually even be feasible b) even if they are, we are most likely several decades away from realizing this c) will be far, far less impactful and world changing than people seem to believe(e.g. with respect to the flagship claim to fame of being able to break RSA, quantum-proof cryptography has been a booming field for decades and there are already countless encryption algos that have not been shown to be more vulnerable to some quantum algorithm) d) it is VERY questionable if they could ever even come close to being profitable due to how few customers would actually have a use for the niche problems they would be better at solving than classical computers. What's happened is the field of QC is fundamentally still at the very early research stage, but this hype boom has paradoxically made it out to look as if it's somehow comparable to something like the semiconductor industry or AI(that's a bubble in its own right, no AGI coming anytime soon from LLMs, but that's less egregious because they actually do have a product people would buy). Quantum "startups" getting unicorn valuations and the quantum divisions at Google IBM Microsoft etc. are practically indistinguishable from the academic labs working in the same field apart from funding, their success is still only really judged by publications because we're so far off from this end goal that any measure related to how they would legitimately perform as a business would be insane to even try to discuss. IMO the two driving factors of this scenario are a) governments around the world are obliged to push enormous funding into the field regardless of its current state because of the (small) risk of a national security concern regarding cryptography, b) investors throwing money at the "industry" and hyping it up because they're either so stupid they actually think we're getting a quantum computer in 5 years or see this as a speculative cash cow they can profit off of before the bubble bursts. I think most likely scenario is companies (obviously) fail to deliver on overzealous timelines they've promised, the bubble pops, startups that are virtually just academic labs loose their VC funding, Google IBM Microsoft etc pivot to whatever the next hype piece is they can use to manipulate their stock price, the most promising startups retain at least the national security related government funding, and the field progresses as it was doing prior to all this frenzy. Maybe 20-30 years down the line we see a genuine QC, maybe someone discovers an unseen scalability bottleneck that makes it fundamentally infeasible to do, maybe it's possible but the lack of profitability and use cases make it a niche thing that a few labs or companies have across the world and that's it, who knows. But anyone who thinks this is going to change the world like the transistor did, much less within half a decade, is off their rocker or just doesn't understand the technology at all