ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
90% Positive
Analyzed from 1075 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#quantum#europe#computing#competitive#packaging#tech#technology#design#fabrication#public

Discussion (14 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
If they can make progress on QOA and HHL algos, that has value.
But the main thing they're trying to avoid - and this can't be understated - is dependency on US tech firms when quantum gets good enough to be practical for those sorts of problems.
Since WW2, Europe has happily been a consumer of US produced tech. The last 10 years has caused a revisiting of that view. It's an exercise for the reader to figure out the factors leading to that, and whether they think it's sensible or not.
I think it's a mistaken strategy but it's hard to suggest anything better when you look at the measly amounts they're investing that would get them very little with existing technology. So, they're forced to gamble on vaporwave tech.
Edit: I'm specifically talking about their semiconductor and computing strategy.
Because if you do not become competitive on the frontier you are doomed to perpetually play a game of catch-up. This is what happened to the EU with battery technology, renewable technology, AI, digital services, and semiconductors.
GPUs require sub-7nm design, fabrication, and packaging - all of which is nonexistent in Europe today, and would take 10-20 years at which point the EU-27 would have fallen behind the frontier again.
Europe cannot be competitive in bleeding edge and legacy packaging in 2026-36 given how heavily subsidized and tightly integrated the Asian and American cluster is (eg. I can get 0-1% interest rate loan terms with tax holidays and subsidizes in the 9 figure range in much of Asia and the US). Europe CAN reinvest in 2D packaging, materials, and metrology (which is critical for quantum).
Europe cannot be competitive in bleeding edge fabrication in 2026-36 given how heavily subsidized and tightly integrated the Asian and American cluster is (eg. I can get 0-1% interest rate loan terms with tax holidays and subsidizes in the 9 figure range in much of Asia and the US). Europe CAN be competitive in legacy (28nm and above), power, and compound semiconductor fabrication (this also had a downstream impact on quantum).
Europe cannot be competitive in chip design in 2026-36 given how heavily subsidized and tightly integrated the Asian and American cluster is. It CAN work on building the next generation of tooling needed to design quantum circuits and conduct metrology.
Quantum applications of Sensing, Optics, Communication, Key Distribution, Computing, Packaging, and Hardware Design are all greenfield segments that everyone is at a roughly equal starting point at. All these technologies have directly relevant applications in telecommunications, defense, semiconductor packaging, and computing.
And this is what can help some EU states regain relevance in the competitive frontier. There's a reason France has been working heavily on this for a decade.
I think AI is a good example. EU wide there are plenty of public HPC centers and in 2020 we had (relative to the world) plenty of compute. In other words, we had the tech, we had the compute, and we had the know how. And yet we don't really have a competitive AI scene in Europe. There were some very small projects launched to try to train LLMs. All of them were no more than learning exercises.
How will QC be different?
The EU had already lost the initial race in HPC and AI by 2011-16 when EU institutions and state-level institutions failed to support the kind of public-private collaboration that was happening contemporarily in the US and China. I remember noticing on visits how EU nationals were often working on or closely with the Guangzhou Supercomputing Center in large part because capital that could monetize fundamental research dried up due to the Eurozone crisis.
Similarly in Quantum, barely 15 years ago, a large portion of China's current leading quantum researchers like Pan Jianwei were still working closely with European researchers like Anton Zellinger at institutions like Wien, Geneva, INRIA, and the Max Planck Institutes to close knowledge gaps that remained. While the gap has now been reversed, it can be managed because having some sovereign capabilities at least helps reduce the risk of being at the mercy of export controls.
Basically, the EU and individual EU states have one last chance to recapture the frontier lest it's gone.
Quantum today is actually in a good place investment wise because two fields have matured enough that there is a defense usecase to rally funding around - communication and sensing.
Computing is less than 1-3rd of the story. We could end up failing to make a fault tolerant computer and be totally fine and happy with the other benefits.
The long term hope that we throw out there is that these two usecases subsidise the development of quantum computers in some way, and _that_ helps take it over the line. But that's just a bonus.
I feel as though quantum is just starting to get to the point of interesting but is still too early for me to get excited about as having practical application within my career time frame (I expect to be retired in ~15 years).
Leetcode ain't cutting it. If you want to do cool shit, hit the books and learn real engineering. Arizona [0], Rochester [1], UCF (Florida) [2], and CU Boulder [3] are the best distance learning programs in this space, but all expect a deep background in Physics to succeed.
Additionally, most private sector employers in the space remain in the US, Canada, China, and France (but increasingly integrated with the US thanks to the CQE).
[0] - https://optics.arizona.edu/prospective-students/graduate-pro...
[1] - https://www.hajim.rochester.edu/optics/graduate/ms-home.html
[2] - https://creol.ucf.edu/academics/graduate-programs/masters-pr...
[3] - https://www.colorado.edu/ecee/academics/online-programs/ms-e...