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?
Slammed 💥 🦹♂️
🙄
Ka-POW! ZAP!
Of course its going to be unreliable after you slam it!
Slammed or lightly pounded?
COME ON AND SLAM
AND WELCOME TO THE JAM
What do you expect from the company which promised that windows 10 would be the last one? xD
Microsoft:
You can tell that someone is lying about their work in quantum physics when they claim to understand quantum physics.
“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.
It’s laser time boys!
What’s next Theranus doesn’t actually make thousand dollar tests for a dollar?
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.
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.
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.
So that’s the part that gets me stuck. There is no clear answer and it has no way to check the result as QC aren’t capable of doing so (otherwise they wouldn’t be using QC since they can only be based on binary inputs and binary guesses of true / false outcomes on a massive scale). How can it decide that it is “correct” and that the task is completed?
Computations based on guesses of true / false can only be so accurate with no way to check the result in the moment.
Yes, took me months to see that too! The point of the chances is though, with some problems you don’t need a definitive answer. Having a solution that solves 95% of your problem can be enough for the problems you would use a quantum computer in the first place. In other cases, your chance is somewhere between 99 and 100 percent so you practically still have a definitive answer.
The part that doesn’t make sense is how a guess on a QC in a binary is any better than a scientist just guessing an outcome from a binary. Yeah, it can do it a lot, but if you can’t test the outcome to verify if it’s correct or not, how is it better than any other way of guessing outcomes?
Statistically, it absolutely isn’t. Even if it continually narrows things down via guesses, it’s still no more valuable than any other guesses. Because in all the whitepapers I’ve seen, it’s not calculating anything because it can’t. It’s simply assuming that one option is correct.
In the real world, it’s not a calculation and it doesn’t assist in… anything really. It’s no better than a random number generator assigning those numbers to a result. I don’t get the utility other than potentially breaking numerical cryptography.
I’ve been bugging my colleagues with that same question the past months, the main difference between random number generators and qubits is the lack of quantum entanglement. To my surprise, I was actually able to find a passcode by just looking at the output probabilities.
