I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA • Hacker News Board

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#21

Post by api » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 4:39 PM UTC

Do you believe there is now a quantum Moore's Law in place? I've seen graphs showing quantum chips from Google, IBM, and Intel plotted on a log scale that are suggestive. (These exclude adiabatic quantum computers which are different beasts.)

If there is do you think we're perhaps less than 10 years from QC capable of breaking common number theory based asymmetric cryptographic algorithms like RSA or elliptic curve for at least lower key strengths? That's what these graphs suggest.

(I know breaking crypto is not by any stretch the only or the most valuable thing you can do with QC but it's the one that gets the most press and it's relevant to my current work.)

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#22

Post by pc » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 4:39 PM UTC

This is slightly off-topic (I'm going to be that "this is sorta more a comment than a question..." guy for a second), but I just want to say that Scott's blog is one of my favorite blogs on the whole internet. If only there were more like it!

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#23

Post by enriquto » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 4:40 PM UTC

You wrote this:

> For example, breaking almost any cryptographic code can be phrased as an NP problem. So if P=NP—and if, moreover, the algorithm that proved it was “practical” (meaning, not n^1000 time or anything silly like that)—then all cryptographic codes that depend on the adversary having limited computing power would be broken.

Can you explain this reasoning more precisely? The class P contains difficult problems that require O(n^googolplex) algorithms, so are not solvable in practice. The fact that P=NP would not make these problems any easier.

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#24

Post by rspeer » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 4:40 PM UTC

liamcardenas wrote: post #12

Thoughts on this comment? "You don't actually want qubits, you want an analog computer with differentiable signals. Most likely photonic. Qubits are a dead evolution branch. I've been recently exploring computational metamaterials for photonic computation. http://users.ece.utexas.edu/~aalu/research%20-%20page%203.ht... . (there's quite a few papers on this but unfortunately they are all paywalled. Spoiler alert, they…

I'm not Scott, but spaghetti sort isn't any kind of computational breakthrough, it's just trading off measurement error for computation time.

Here's the digital version of spaghetti sort:

1. Enumerate the possible lengths of spaghetti that your spaghetti sorter can distinguish above a certain probability. This enumeration will be small and finite.

2. Round your values to one of these lengths.

3. Radix sort or bucket sort those values in O(n).

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#25

Post by thecupisblue » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 4:40 PM UTC

Hi!

So, what do you do when you're not flipping qubits around?

Got any cool stories you wanna share?

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#26

Post by bascule » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 4:42 PM UTC

jderick wrote: post #8

Do you think that quantum physics can tell us anything about 'the hard problem' in philosophy? Is it possible that the mind could somehow control how quantum states collapse in situations where randomness would be the typical explanation?

There have been some poorly received hypotheses to this effect, most notably Roger Penrose's Orch-OR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reducti...

That said, most attempts at quantifying whether or not distinctly quantum mechanical processes in the brain related to things like microtubules and NMDA receptors are significant to cognition (i.e. is the brain a quantum computer?) have generally concluded the answer is no:

See:

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15516709cog...

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#27

Post by elizabeth8890 » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 4:42 PM UTC

Are you collaborating with the National Labs at all, i.e., http://quantum.lanl.gov/q_computing.shtml

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#28

Post by navidfarhadi » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 4:42 PM UTC

Hi Scott. Thank you for doing this AMA.

In your opinion what are some good universities across the world to look into if one wants to do graduate or post-graduate level research in quantum computing?

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#29

Post by ahussain » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 4:42 PM UTC

jderick wrote: post #8

Do you think that quantum physics can tell us anything about 'the hard problem' in philosophy? Is it possible that the mind could somehow control how quantum states collapse in situations where randomness would be the typical explanation?

It doesn't answer this question directly, but Aaronson's paper "The Ghost in the Quantum Turing Machine"[1] is a great read. It talks about the relationship between quantum mechanics and free will.

[1] https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/giqtm3.pdf

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#30

Post by ttctciyf » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 4:42 PM UTC

Hi Scott,

If it turned out to be true that advances in advertising technology like profiling and microtargeting (see, e.g. [1]) could effectively deliver the likelihood of electoral victory to their highest paying and most ruthless practicioners, would this be something to worry about? And if so, what action should we take in order to preserve democratic ideals?

1: https://medium.com/join-scout/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-...