“Microsoft is slated to back up its claims and success in quantum computing next week at an American Physical Society (APS) meeting in California.”
Well if they try to put on a show like Elon did with his dancing robots and what not we can be %100 sure it is a pyramid scheme.
Slammed 💥 🦹♂️
🙄
Ka-POW! ZAP!
Of course its going to be unreliable after you slam it!
What do you expect from the company which promised that windows 10 would be the last one? xD
Maybe they were smoking too much Majorana.
Check it, yo. In the 90s all the articles and rumors around quantum computing were exactly the same. Exactly.
Whenever I hear about some new quantum computing breakthrough, I spend about five seconds wondering if it’s real and then I feel very nostalgic because no, it never is.
Except quantum computers do indeed exist right now, and did not in the 90’s. Sadly, the hype and corporate interests still make it difficult to tell truth from nonsense.
Yeah, sure they exist. Much like the ENIAC. And it’s cool stuff to work with. It’s just not anywhere close to practical. And it never has been.
If you had asked someone in the 90s if they could imagine half the shit that we have technologically they wouldn’t believe it. Just because something seems surreal, doesn’t mean it’s fake.
Whether this new chip can do the things it claims we’ll see soon enough.
I mean, I was a kid in the 90s and I feel like we’re behind what I expected in most respects.
The ideas have always been there, it’s just a bottle neck on cheap electronics and people figuring out the foundation technology. I can’t think of to many tech advancements that have surprised me; that’s not too say they aren’t impressive, but just about anything we can imagine is possible.
The main thing I don’t expect to see is useful and reliable brain/electronics interfaces. I think biology is too unique for an of the shelf product to be possible, which means it’s too hard to make a profitable product.
Nnnnnno?
Yeah, most quantum science at the moment is largely fraudulent. It’s not just Microsoft. It’s being developed because it’s being taught in business schools as the next big thing, not because anybody has any way to use it.
Any of the “quantum computers” you see in the news are nothing more than press releases about corporate emulators functioning how they think it might work if it did work, but it’s far too slow to be used for anything.
Quantum science is not fraudulent, incredible leaps are being made with the immense influx of funding.
Quantum industry is a different beast entirely, with scientific rigour being corrupted by stock price management.
It’s an objective fact that quantum computers indeed exist now, but only at a very basic prototype level. Don’t trust anything a journalist says about them, but they are real, and they are based on technology we had no idea if would ever be possible.
Well, I love being wrong! Are you able to show a documented quantum experiment that was carried out on a quantum computer (and not an emulator using a traditional architecture)?
How about a use case that isn’t simply for breaking encryption, benchmarking, or something deeply theoretical that they have no way to know how to actually program for or use in the real world?
I’m not requesting these proofs to be snarky, but simply because I’ve never seen anything else beyond what I listed.
When I see all the large corporations mentioning the processing power of these things, they’re simply mentioning how many times they can get an emulated tied bit to flip, and then claiming grandiose things for investors. That’s pretty much it. To me, that’s fraudulent (or borderline) corporate BS.
Hell yes! I’d love to share some stuff.
One good example of a quantum computer is the Lukin group neutral atoms work. As the paper discusses, they managed to perform error correction procedures making 48 actual logical qubits and performing operations on them. Still not all that practically useful, but it exists, and is extremely impressive from a physics experiment viewpoint.
There are also plenty of meaningful reports on non-emulated machines from the corporate world. From the big players examples include the Willow chip from Google and Heron from IBM being actual real quantum devices doing actual (albeit basic) operations. Furthermore there are a plethora of smaller companies like OQC and Pasqal with real machines.
On applications, this review is both extensive and sober, outlining the known applications with speedups, costs and drawbacks. Among the most exciting are Fermi-Hubbard model dynamics (condensed matter stuff), which is predicted to have exponential speedup with relatively few resources. These all depend on a relatively narrow selection of tricks, though. Among interesting efforts to fundamentally expand what tricks are available is this work from the Babbush group.
Let me know if that’s not what you were looking for.
I appreciate the reply!
I made the attempt, but couldn’t parse that first link. I gathered that it was about error correction due to the absolutely massive number of them that crop up in QC, but I admit that I can’t get much further with it as the industry language is thick on that paper. Error reduction is good, but it still isn’t on any viable data, and it’s still a massive amount of errors even post-correction. It’s more of a small refinement to an existing questionable system, which is okay, but doesn’t really do much unless I’m misunderstanding.
The Willow (and others) examples I’m skeptical on. We already have different types of chips for different kinds of operations, such as CPUs, GPUs, NPUs, etc. This is just one more kind of chip that will be found in computers of the future. Of course, these can sometimes be combined into a single chip too, but you get the idea.
The factorization of integers is one operation that is simple on a quantum computer. Since that is an essential part of public / private key cryptography, those encryption schemes have been recently upgraded with algorithms that a quantum computer cannot so easily unravel.
With quantum computing, a system of qubits can be set up in such a way that it’s like a machine that physically simulates the problem. It runs this experiment over and over again and measures the outcome, until one answer is the clear winner. For the right type of problem, and with enough qubits, this is unbelievably fast.
Problem is, this only works for systems that have a known answer (like cryptography) with a verifiable result, otherwise the system never knows when the equation is “complete”. It’s also of note that none of these organizations are publishing their benchmarking algorithms so when they talk about speed, they aren’t exactly being forthright. I can write code that runs faster on an Apple 2e than a modern x64 processor, doesn’t mean the Apple 2e is faster. Then factor in how fast quantum systems degrade and it’s… not really useful in power expenditure or financially to do much beyond a large corporation or government breaking encryption.
Use cases are generally problems with very large amount of factors that are not feasible to calculate with normal comouters, think about chemical/medicine simulation and logistics optimization or public transport timetables.
I just saw on Linked In that in 12 months “quantum AI” is going to be where it’s at. Uh… really? Do I hear “crypto-quantum AI?”
That sounds like something they say your washing detergent has to clean stains better.
QUANTUM AI? IN my blockchain? It’s more likely than you think!
‘distributed compute’ using blockchain to farm out ai instances, is a web3 thang.
deleted by creator
Crypto-quantum AI+ MaXX?
Slammed or lightly pounded?
COME ON AND SLAM
AND WELCOME TO THE JAM
Microsoft:
You can tell that someone is lying about their work in quantum physics when they claim to understand quantum physics.
It’s laser time boys!
BOYZ!!
What’s next Theranus doesn’t actually make thousand dollar tests for a dollar?
a breakthrough type of material which can observe and control Majorana particles to produce more reliable and scalable qubits
To… produce a more random random numbers generator?
If true, this would in fact be a huge step toward quantum computing at scale, which would revolutionize computing. However, they’ve claimed this before, and have offered no evidence yet of their supposed discovery.
Of course. Not a single quantum computer has done anything but test programs and quantum-specific benchmarks. Until a quantum computer finally does something a normal computer regularly does, but faster, we should simply ignore this area.
EDIT: could the downvoters state a single occasion where a quantum computer outmatched a normal computer on a real problem. And with that I mean something more elaborate than winning naughts and crosses, or something like that.
until it’s better we should simply ignore this
That seems like a strange comment to make. How will it get better if we don’t spend the time and effort to make it better?
With quantum computing if you ignore it you are simultaneously not ignoring it?
I don’t think so, but yes.
The idea is not to have three worthless announcements per week. They can get better all they want, and come back once they have tangible results.
That’s a different kind of quantum computer though (which i call the “real” kind). But that needs a while, especially with current risk-avoiding behavior of big corp. We are not even optical yet, not to talk about multitalents like graphene/silicene.
