The Quantum Hype Bubble Is About To Burst 

😀

Won't be anywhere near a thing in a decade. In a century? Maybe!

I observed what you did. So you don't!

I'm clapping with one hand! Bravo!

Ah, Schrodinger's comment.

Best joke I’ve heard all week

" "*

I was glad I wasn’t right in the middle of a sip when I heard that.

I was sipping beer from a can when I heard that and it almost caused an accident. 😆

Certainly true of Liz Truss' government! 'The Market' looked ... the highly entangled (as in kittens and balls of string) government promptly collapsed.

As I came to the end of the video, I started to come to a confirmation of the same feeling - "Science without the gobbledygook; also without the BS". Thanks Sabine, for your honesty and clarity.

She's got a decidedly unscientific certainty to the statements she makes. Her opinions are just that and delivering her opinions as obvious facts is deceptive. Quantum computing has enormous potential. It may be expensive and may always be expensive and it may be noisy and this may never change but even with those problems it has enormous potential. If it's at all useful it can do things that seem like total magic right now. This power is known and this knowledge is what causes the seekers to pour so much time, effort, and money in. And Sabine is doing something very sneaky here. She makes a video that contains inflammatory rhetoric about a topic she knows little about and finishes it off by turning into a saleswomen hawking a predatory product that promises it can teach you how to think. And she gets paid for it. Unknown to most, the reason this video exists is to get Sabine paid. The only reason. This is why it is inflammatory. So you'll watch it. It's not inflammatory so it's closer to the truth. The topic isn't chosen because Sabine has strong feelings about it. It's pandering. It's clickbait. Advertising and even payment consistently and inevitably causes the reduction of speech into drama and propaganda. Each RU-vidr that engages in sponsorships falls into this trap and all their channels become hollow shells of their former glory. Honesty gets turned into drama. The depths are made shallow. The complex is made simple. The heartfelt is made insincere. The RU-vidr clearly only shows up because it's their job. The passion fades and becomes jadedness. Lies creep in. Exaggeration bulldozes over subtlety. Truth dwindles. And the fanboys keep cheering. Like lemmings. Their brains rotted. Their faculties stunted. Off the cliff they go. I dare call out the BS for what it is. I despise Sabine for her fakeness. Another video only made so that there's a place to tack an ad onto.

@@xbzq Clueless, Sabine was a leading theoretical physicist and calls it like she sees it. the world is filled with bubbles and this is certainly one. She never said they won't happen, just bagging on the hype.

@@dft1 Sabine IS the hype. But you could never see that. Also, she has very strong ideas about a lot of scientific ideas as if they were settled science. They aren't. She talks a if she has answers that she doesn't have. I don't care about her credentials. She's just a person. And she's often wrong. Like all of us. She's no god. She doesn't understand programming, or quantum algorithms. She doesn't seem to understand quantum computers won't be used for payroll. Neither does any of you comments seem to understand Sabine is just a person. Everyone worships her as if she's done kinda of god. Everyone on earth it seems theses days subscribes to some hero's ideas and worships them. When they inevitably fall, these people fall right along with them because they've tied their identity in with this person.

@@xbzq I share some of your concerns about her aggressive way of stating her opinions (she does seem to present herself as the arbiter of what science is useful or worth spending time and money on), but RU-vidrs need money to survive the same as the rest of us.

Just started watching her videos and I adore her dry sense of humour, such a great bonus on top of the education she provides 👍

LOL, exactly the comment I was going to make.

Just so long as it’s not your pension fund that -invested- lost that money ...

It's like scientists tend to Elonize (*Elon Musk) things for sensationalistic purposes.

It will make the landscape even more polarized. Nothing new

Was it worth it doing the PhD in QC? During my Bsc and Msc I have focused on researching quantum algorithms, but now I have to choose between continuing with QC and shifting towards ML/DL for my PhD. Both fields are over-hyped, but ML has seen some really promising developments lately.

@@stefanbalauca7481 ML is the programming language that replaced LISP in education sometime around 1990. Machine Learning needs a different acronym.

@@johndododoe1411 I'm afraid it's going to be the other way round.

Can one look/interpret Qubits as a wave? if the question even makes sense... :D thank you

I look forward to having a conversation about qbits while you drive me around town one day.

I do not really have a clue beyond pop science about quantum anything. I do know EECS though and after seeing claims of the capabilities of quantum computers have been trying to tell people for a long time they won't make their GPUs faster. At best, for everyday use, they'll be a coprocessor for rare, very specialised uses. Now I have a video to send people instead of getting dragged into go nowhere argument.

@@GermanGameAdviser Yes, until entanglement leaves the building-thx for asking.

You know alot about germans, very suspicious...

She’s just pessimistic and gloomy… it’s easier to destroy arguments than build them.

While I really enjoyed the video, saying that she is balanced and skeptical is quite funny. It is a massively oriented video. Even more, since it is so obviously oriented toward one conclusion, I don't mind it : it's made very clear that she will present points that go in her direction, and you know that straight up.

I always leave the video depressed.

"But if you do it with a quantum computer you can publish it in Nature" - and in Science at the same time 😜

😂😂

Yeah.... cause its fucking cool as hell.

Was the same thing 5 years ago with a deep learning model instead of other types of maths

@@kaourintintamine1383 And now we have jaw dropping AI applications like DallE, ChatGPT and more. Not sure what we will get from quantum computers. The NSA decrypting all our porn videos?

Not quite. Some people have more inside information and make money on both the growing and the bursting of the bubble. Other people buy in near the peak and then can't get out fast enough and get burned. The stock market creates nothing, it is a zero-sum game.

Investing in Quantum Computing is God's way of saying you have too damn much money. All credit to Robin Williams

There's a suing attributed to P.T. Barnum that I think applies to investors who spray money into stuff without understanding the subject in even the most cursory way: "There's a sucker born every minute."

Unfortunately, a lot of those people losing money will be taxpayers via their governments.

@@fewwiggle Then people need to stop electing paint chip gobbling Mow Ron's.

haha, doctor goes brrrr

It sounds like the discussion I have with co-workers about their kids. They say to me, "I want my kids to have what I never did, don't you?" My answer is, "No, I don't care about that." It really rocks them when I tell them, "I'm not putting myself in charge of my kids' happiness, that's something they need to go out and find."

@@Skank_and_Gutterboy but wouldn’t you prefer to be a part of it rather then a distant observer? They are YOUR kids after all

German humour is not a "widerspruch in sich", it's loudly sarcastic but somehow subtle, like Nietzsche

You talked to your doctor? Guessing this must've been pre-pandemic

Not really. She very clearly has her biases. Especially on anything quantum related or related to ideas like free will or the multiverse that involve both science and philosophy. She is great but she's not the "living embodiment of keeping it real".

If by, keeping it real, you mean leaning further and further toward cynical skepticism, and philosophical contrarianism. I still watch and enjoy her content , but am often left disheartened and hopeless.

With great humor!

@@anakinthemannequin69 Free will is just an illusion , consciousness is just an absurd joke....

@@anakinthemannequin69 because she is fed up by all the media hypes and BS by journalists and marketing types who have no clue whatsoever.

'Cloud computing' was always about controlling the product, and streaming revenue. You will own nothing and like it.

@@rodrickard5528 not exactly. When cloud computing first came put, it became widely known as a term, but few people actually had any notion what it meant. This sort of dynamic breeds a certain group of people to use such a term as a cure-all of any problem. The snake oil salesmen basically. Back then, if you had a problem, just had to litter the term cloud into the conversation a few times and mamy would automatically think they new some great fix for almost any problem. It was the same hype crypto had and similar junk related to it. Cloud computing, when actually defined, I agree, wasn't anything great and just a play on how computers manage themselves. Still, back then it was more mystical that real.

There was also a nice little neural network hype (not called deep learning then) in about the same timeframe.

Indeed, there were a couple of waves of AI, which mostly consisted in making a new lisp variant and some hardware to make the lisp test programs work faster. Then there was the "expert systems" that were supposed to revolutionize the world and "knowledge experts" were to be trained everywhere.to solve all problems. The fact is that real revolutions are unpredictable by nature.

@@niceguy100000 Yes, also Santa Cruz Operation (SCO), offering Xenix and other Intel/Microsoft/HP based UNIX solutions, all of which Linux killed off. Heady times, fabulous trade show parties, zero profit.

@@wyattonline Yeah, good times. SunOS was next level and properly working unlike some other caveman software. Also the first VR hype (of course totally profitless) was cute.

But AI is arriving at last and is a true world changing revolution

Absolutely savage

Necromancy will fix your cat problem. Just summon up the spirit of Schrodinger. Actually, it sounds as if you've tried that already.

I thought she said hats....

But you probably do not want your head frozen so cold, that parts of it become superconducting. I prefer I fire funeral.

@@manoo422 I wasn't sure if she said "head" or "hats", but I didn't rewind because the joke works either way.

@@bentonjackson8698 she'd pronounce "hat" closer to "het" (not nailing either the American, British, or Australian vowel sound langing somewhere in between everything and succeeding - German engineering for you), and also she has quite a cruel euro humour going so pretty sure it was heads

But if you look at it, does it collapse?

Thanks for watching 👆text my trader Jeremy if you are interested in investing in crypto to making large profits tell him I linked you..

Absofreakinglutely agreed on that one! The next best is Anton Petrov, but he's not a PhD, just (I say "just" but it's definitely not nothing!) a teacher. Still, he has the same flavor of comedy, and he covers lots of different kinds of papers that have been recently published, from astronomy to microbiology and everything in between. But the top winner has, yes, _got_ to be Sabine!

and what USE is the higgs boson or looking at the "big bang theory" with a telecope?

“esoteric abstract concepts” that phrase alone screams “i have no personality other than my 115 IQ”

@@UnderscoreZeroLP Because IQ is the _only true_ measure of mentorship, compassion and humanity? I grew up in a library. This is your problem of you. May harmony find you.

Pompous pretentious twat

PSST, STREAMMIE, BEING ASKED : " JUST HWHAT DO YA SERVE HERE ? " RESPOND : " ETERNITY ..."

Indeed! Sabine knows how to cut right through the fog! But to be frank, I have an MSc in Physics anyway so I know how to navigate this landscape myself. This is why the general public REALLY needs to get up to speed with scientific literacy! Plenty of crazy crackpot ideas running around and marketing hype that says so much but delivers so little! So as Public Enemy said so forcefully: *DON'T Believe the Hype!!!*

As a computing specialist myself I couldn't disagree with her more. An operation that's used heavily in AI, matrix multiplication, can be done on quantum computers. If a quantum computer is sufficiently scaled up, and these operations were run to train an AI, the amount of training on that AI you could do within a short period of time is ridiculous. This becomes increasingly important as data sets are getting bigger and bigger. I've sat around for hours waiting for a smaller model to train on traditional top end silicon hardware, imagine the bigger models. Quantum computers will revolutionise AI, and that's just one example. Quantum computers aren't going away, they're going to get better and better, and a bitter old lady who's mad that their obscure research isn't getting as much money as quantum computing won't stop it. There's hype but there's also substance there. Of course, it won't ever live up to the hype, no new tech does, but eventually it will exceed it. It's really unscientific to discourage quantum computers by saying it's a dead end.

My God at last someone who has enough knowledge to challenge this egotistical attention seaking opinionated women. Most weeks she talks nonsense and is encouraged and fawned over by wannabee intellectuals who almost certainly live alone. Thank you for bucking the slevering trend of accepting this rubbish.

Learn about science, or human nature? XD

@@Mkoivuka Both, I would have thought!

Sounds a bit like "the friends we made along the way"?

Or, you know, a device that can revolutionise AI. Quantum computers will be useful, so long as the progress in scaling up the number of qubits and stability continues, as it has been continuing strongly.

You mean like Teflon was the only useful product from putting a man on the moon?

These days you get genitally mutilated for no reason instead. Truly progressive times we live in right now...

Humor aside she is basically the only one who is exposing rotten, stinking mold that have been decomposing physics and stopping advancement in the last century.

delivered with a german style. i love her videos.

Right! And her delivery is so deadpan. hehe. She goes from the highly technical to humor and back, and if you had the sound turned off, you wouldn't detect it.

I don't actually remember overhype of the internet (and I do predate it). I suspect it has exceeded almost all predictions made for it. Do you have examples to support your claim? (Simple, honest question... not trying to start an internet war. :-) ) (And I do agree with your general premise.)

@@peter9477 good question on that internet hype thing I think it fulfilled everything and more I also predate the internet myself. I think the second statement is the biggest truth to be said and is pretty significant. There is a lot of growing pains in all fields of development and some are more embarrassing than others but it's the fact they even tried it is what matters, as far as quantum goes though it has indeed gone too far. It's better to try and fail than to not try and miss your chance.

The problem is that quantum computers will almost certainly be useless for decades just due to physics. Until someone can discover a room temperature superconductor and a way to stop particles in superposition from decohering (I don't believe this even possible), most people won't even be able to have a supercomputer, let alone use it, and even if a way is found, we have maybe a few algorithms that are actually useful, and creating more would require even more work and even more research.

@@peter9477 omg, you didn’t hear about the dotcom crash, which caused a smaller recession in the whole economy? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

@@peter9477 the burst of the DotCom bubble in 2000 was the internet hype winter. Now we are definitely through.

fact. the fact of this kind of humour existing within this subject’s framework is already kinda absurdly ironic, but the fact that it’s been so tastefully executed in these videos just cracks me, i almost feel rick-rolled each time. a brilliant thing of its own kind

Yes, it's great to hear the science WITHOUT the hype!

There is commercial hype and then there is scientific hype. Don't confuse the two of them. Commercial hype about possible technological breakthroughs tend to inflate and collapse very easily. In 1822 Charles Babbage, the father of the computer, came up with a design for a mechanical computer that he called the difference engine. The English government funded him to make his design a reality but the metalworking technology at the time was too primitive. After 20 years the government gave up and considered the investment a complete failure. It wasn't until the invention of electronic circuits in the 20th century that computers exploded and became a part of everyday life. The theoretical possibilities of computers in 1822 looked just as promising as the theoretical promises of quantum computers look today. We may currently not have the technological sophistication to make quantum computers commercially profitable, but this should not deter us from pursuing further research and development into this fascinating technology.

hehe entanglement

yes, I feel like I can rely on her for an honest opinion.

You have only an indefinite probability of needing to be worried.

@@flagmichael hehhehehe funny nonsense. In fact it is precisely that: funny nonsense, because you mix different concepts with different transcendental conditions, hence creating a pseudo-paradox... which can be perceived as funny nonsense,. I prefer to drop the "funny". Another ingredient is the claim that quantum theory explains "everything", which , not accessible for quantum theorists, includes complexity, language, and culture.

yes even lcd, fluidics, 2d non dispersive non dissipative circuits, mabye graphene layers, or surface based , 2d logic gates are possible in 2 with accurate timers.. solitons, in 1d, advanced crystal nano fluids and such material sciences are more promising and show results. cheap and dont heat up nor need cooling. even a 8 cm wire has a massive voltage drop, these have no resistance so if they are bigger but flatter, and doent make 400 watts of heat, its great.

humble??? she's casually insulting extremely intelligent people and their projects and acting like a total know-it-all

@@SpeedOfThought1111 don’t be so soft , her sarcasm is part of the humor which allows others to be more receptive and keep gen Z non existing attention spans on her. If you believe she’s actually insulting them purposefully, I’m sorry your sense of humor is so dry.

@@SpeedOfThought1111 she is insulting them rightfully

Isn't a "skeptical physicist" a pleonasm. At least it should be.

A lot of us are sceptical and aware of how much hype there is, but, the entire grant system is based on promising future results and dreaming up how they create profit. If you are honest there will be no grant money for your research. It's a similar issue like impact factor that is more a measure of a field's popularity than actual quality of published articles. Science has been corrupted by capitalism and society at large has no tolerance for complex problems and explanations.

dont get me wrong, i like her stuff usually, but this video is more like a rant about that others get more money for there research then she gets... ofc she got some points in the video but at the end it sounds like a rant about why she dont get the money the others get

She's a physicist, clearly not a computer scientist to see the benefits of quantum computing. Matrix multiplication is used heavily in AI, and guess what can do that at ludicrous speeds? This physicist should stick to making science videos, not videos on computing she knows absolutely nothing about. Being an expert in one field clearly doesn't translate to anything. Of course, there is an initial hype phase of every new tech, but that eventually passes and then after that trough comes revolutionary tech. To say it's a bubble that's going to burst and nothing revolutionary will come out of it eventually, is complete bullshit.

@@mattl1250 Nice that you mention the other big bubble. There is exactly zero intelligence in AI so fits well here :D

She has a distinct bite of linguistic sharpness that combines the candid command of language as exemplified in the writing of the late Scalia, the tenacity exemplified by the writing O'Connor, and the linguistic influences of the late Ginsberg.

honestly sabine should know better than to say some of this rubbish.... i have no doubt they will be useful, probably far sooner than that higgs bosom .... but hey no-one knows might be a few hundred years before the machines themselves are useful.... what you learn along the way will be useful and it all contributes this is how science works respect to this field as when i learnt about some of the achievements i was like hog diggity, big factorisations proven!

@@DarkShroom Can you nestle yourself in a quantum computer? No! Higgs bosom on the other hand? You can never be sure what will be useful.

Yea I feel that, I’m currently getting my PhD in physics and I’m dreading heading into the workforce. I don’t want to work on military technology bc I hate the way the US uses its military. I’m thinking I might try to stay in academia and if it turns out I’m not that great of a researcher I’ll just go into being a high school teacher or community college professor. At least that way I can get some fulfillment from teaching. I don’t think I could be happy producing weapons or even going into the private sector in general since I’ll basically be working to make some fat capitalist richer.

It just sucks man I went into physics bc I loved the formalism and learning how the universe works on a fundamental level. I motivated myself through undergrad by watching lectures on cosmology, QFT, and GR and now I’m facing the grim reality that that’s probably not what I’m gonna get to work on after grad school and it’s really depressing. I’m glad to hear you found a job in physics you enjoy and I hope I can do the same

@@jongya Private sector can be very rewarding. Consider working in fusion power, wind/hydro power, new battery technology, biotech (think artificial replacement limbs with a brain-machine control interface, or whatever other cool technology catches your interest.

Quantum computers were never supposed to be used by everyday people. Their use is limited to very specific areas of research and development. Even if we had a perfectly functioning and scalable quantum computer the size of a normal laptop, normal people would still not use them. A normal computer is much more versatile and useful for anything an average consumer would use a computer for. That is not to say a quantum computer is useless, but it's uses are limited, and mostly interesting for research in specific areas.

@@danimyte3021 Agreed. This is why the scenario of wide scale business usage is a fiction. Quantum computing startups might work for specific areas, but ordinary business people will never need nor will use them, at least in the near future. It will stay the tool of specific research areas and fields both needing high computation capacity and having the ability to compensate its higher costs.

Do quantum energy producers, recently discovered by humans, wish to be domesticated, corralled in a computer, forced to run in circles so that their energy can be redirected and harvested to improve human memory and computational faculties?

I'm finding the prospect of the unexpected, magnetism-based computing more interesting with more potential of being here sooner, more widespread, with wider applications frankly. Edit: Also teleportation is death. Star Trek had many great ideas, but once you look into what teleportation actually is.. you die and get replaced by a replica. No thanks I'd rather take space shuttles to planets

@@danimyte3021 That is oddly similar to what in the early 1940s, IBM's president, Thomas J Watson, reputedly said: "I think there is a world market for about five computers." 🤔 Einstein: predictions are always difficult. Especially if they concern the future. Might still go the same path as nuclear fusion, with success always 10 years off.

Research like optical computing?

It's unfortunate, so much money; what happened to deliverables?

I've been in quantum computing since 2007 and I've seen steady progress the whole way.

@@danielsank2286 Like, in 2007 they could factorize 15=3x5 using Shor's algorithm, while now they can factorize 21=3x7? Note that the quantum computer they use for such a calculation is application-specific and input-specific. In other words, the quantum computer used to factorize 21 cannot be used to factorize 15. To make things worse, hardware complexity grows exponentially with respect to the number of bits used to represent the input.

@@SurfinScientist When I started in 2007, a good lifetime for a superconducting qubit was 600 ns. Now we see 100 times larger as a matter of routine. Factoring small numbers in algorithms tailored for those specific cases was a nice demonstration in the 2000's when the qubits couldn't live long enough to compute anything actually interesting, but these days we're aiming for full error corrected computation. I'm not sure what you mean about the hardware complexity growing exponentially with number of qubits, because actually in my career I'd say the hardware has overall gotten simpler, and the electronics, packaging, etc. remains relatively the same level of complexity as the number of bits increases.

It's because she is challenging a lot of the conventional wisdom. She is asking you to think for yourself, rather than regurgitate what you are being taught. Perhaps you can find ways to do that with your music. I suspect that unlike Sabine with all the BS surrounding physics, you will find a deeper understanding of the intricacies and realities of your field and grasp the wisdom of your predecessors, but finding out that the giants of old were right and understanding why in new ways is its own fun and equally challenging. But then again, maybe music theory has gone down the crapper, too, and needs the same kind of sanity to be brought back down to Earth.

I am so amazed that you can now write for a 100-instrument orchestra.

Just as an FYI, the whole using a certain percentage of our brain is a myth. It helps to think of our neurons as a binary system like computers; neuron not firing as 0 and firing as 1. The 0 is doing just as much as the 1. It's obviously much more complex, but it helps illustrate the issue. If we used all neurons simultaneously, we would have a stroke BTW ;). I'm not saying you made this claim, I just got triggered into a soap box moment

@@coronnation8854 actually, a seizure a stroke happens when the blood vessels supplying the brain are either ruptured or clotted

You're actually using all of your brain, all of the time.

That is a tempting comparsion but it's apples and oranges. I think the the fission to fusion energy is closer.

@@shrimpflea I don't think I quite see that comparison. I'm talking about the relationship between hardware development to efficiently use binary software code. Vacuum tubes were used as on/off switches (binary), which were shrunk into a solid state transistor switches. It did away with unnecessary components to make the switching occur (like heating elements, glass chambers, and a vacuum). I don't know that the hardware containing a fission process has changed much at all since it's inception (and ironically, it's still basically just a complex steam turbine engine), and fusion has never actually been used to power anything, (despite promises to the contrary for 30-40 years).

I don't believe there will be any change in hardware specifically determined by quantum computing. Quantum computing, provided it will indeed take off, will be very niche, and as such hardware will be developed very specifically for the things it's good at, leaving the rest of the hardware untouched.

Cloud computing because the idea of everyone having to supercool their personal computers or having a mini vacuum chamber installed is ridiculous. We're going back to the pre-PC days with quantum computing, but the benefits will be made available to the masses via the internet and cloud computing, and the IC technology which allows PC's the be small isn't going away.

@@shrimpflea Fission and fusion is not an apples and oranges comparison? If you want an apples to apples comparison, you'd want to compare between two different fission nuclear power plants. Fusion technology has not matured to where there is an industry standard, and an "apples to apples" comparison can be made between different approaches. I also don't like the term "apples and oranges", because it begs the question: when is it acceptable to compare two different fruit and why? Can you compare an apple to a pear or an orange to a lemon? What about a a red apple to a green apple? Do the apples being compared need to come from the same tree? What exactly are we comparing between the fruits? If we are discussing the evolutionary tree of apples and oranges and their common ancestor, THEN can we compare them?

AH a positive view on it I like it

The issue is that quantum computers do not allow you to solve NP complete problems in polynomial time. The algorithms we know of so far only apply to a few specialty problems.

@@peterisawesomeplease you kind of missed the point I was trying to make there.

@@peterisawesomeplease Yes, but since all NP complete problems are solvable if one is in polynomial time, he is saying that once one is solved in polynomial time, the whole class of problems will be solvable in polynomial time.

@@Eric-jh5mp Yes that would be true if there was an algorithm to solve a NP complete problem in polynomial time on a quantum computer. But there isn't one that we know of.

@@sccur Maybe. My point is that even if solving one problem often leads to many being solved in computer science it doesn't mean that any of the quantum algorithms are particularly useful even when considering this point.

She’s Swiss.

You sound like me when I was doing my dissertation in autonomous vehicles with deep reinforcement learning, imitation learning and transfer learning. My advice is to get some hard skills from your research and don't hope for magical sci-fi fantasy application of it

Another bubble that will burst in the next few years will be FSD - Full Self Driving. The programmers working hard on vector spaces and all modes of computer learning are quickly learning that the human mind is much more diversified and complex than what they originally thought, and cannot be emulated with the current hardware and learning theories...

Don't listen to her, quantum computing will be one of the most important inventions this century. I hope you know how much it will revolutionise AI eventually: for example quantum systems can be used for matrix multiplication, an operation that's repeated millions/billions+ times to train an AI model. Imagine the complexity of an AI trained making use of this operation, it'd run rings around traditional hardware.

@@mattl1250 Has quantum superiority been proven for matrix multiplication ?

@@benj6964 no, and it will likely not have a real world use for matrix multiplication for a long, long, long time. Matrix multiplication is highly parallelizable, and GPUs are incredibly good at their computation. Even with a hypothetically faster quantum algorithm, the pure power we can commit to matrix multiplication will likely dwarf any computational efficiencies.

and integrate some machine learning and AI into it - gotta use all the tech company buzzwords