291–300 of 325 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe because China has that now?
Quantum supremacy just means that a quantum computer is better than a classical computer at solving some (toy) task, not that one country's quantum computer is better than another country's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear what you are saying, but maybe on the way to the moon, we can invent microwave ovens
Not to be brazen, but if your argument could be used to justify any investment, I’m not sure it’s a good argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>a million "physical" qubits is a fairly reasonable guestimate. ... >If you are a quantum computation person developing near term applications, you probably would already start getting excited with a 100 (sufficiently long-lived) qubits. ... >"logical qubit" or less formally "long-lived qubit" ... With 100 logical qubits (i.e. 100k physical qubits) lol you're literally guilty of playing the same trick that people are…
Read the second comment you are quoting to the end. I think you misread something.
>If you are a quantum computation person developing near term applications, you probably would already start getting excited with a 100 (sufficiently long-lived) qubits.
Then you go on and on and on and have one sentence about what you can do with 100 full stop period qubits.
So what exactly did I misunderstand?
It's just funny to me how all of you guys - from the crypto QC grifter, all the way to PIs and postdocs like you play the same word game
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly I'd also qualify most of these as things that consumers are overly excited about but will never reach their expected potential (at least in our lifetimes) due to technological limits. Same as flying cars, 3D TVs, 3D printing, household robots, holograms, AR glasses.
3D TVs will come of age once autostereoscopic displays reach the right level of quality. After being blown away by my first glimpse of a display in around 1998 I fully expected them to be useable years ago. I guess we might still be another "10 years" away. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostereoscopy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's dishonest to characterize what I'm saying as "choosing death", as if I've got a nihilistic urge to nuke the planet. Death, birth, and renewal is part of the entire biosphere which has been existed for billions of years. The cells that defy death are called "cancer". The messiness with which humans come into being and then pass away again is NOT something to be engineered away - it is something to experience and…
I apologise for the "choosing death" meme, but I think it is only as inappropriate as you equating human beings with "cancer". You're right, though, that humans have to learn to experience and in some sense come to terms with the messiness of death. I think what we disagree on is what it means to "engineer away" death. Are we engineering away death if we cure a disease, but don't extend the maximum lifespan of humans…
I'm not at all against small increases in lifespan, and certainly for improving quality of life (e.g. defeating disease). I'm specifically against individual immortality because I strongly suspect it would quickly and inexorably lead to stagnation and death for our species.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read the second comment you are quoting to the end. I think you misread something.
This your lede answer to what is the smallest useful non toy QC: >If you are a quantum computation person developing near term applications, you probably would already start getting excited with a 100 (sufficiently long-lived) qubits. Then you go on and on and on and have one sentence about what you can do with 100 full stop period qubits. So what exactly did I misunderstand? It's just funny to me how all of you guys…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you have examples of such simulations at hand? Or links describing some of them? I know next to nothing about quantum computing but I’ve always loved a good infeasible problem.
Feynman's 1981 "Simulating Physics with Computers" is one of the first mentions of how it is (naively) exponentially expensive to store on a classical computer the quantum state of something with n degrees of freedom (a molecule made of multiple atoms). He suggests (vaguely) the notion of a quantum computer. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=simulating%20physics%2... It is less known that a Russian scientist made…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’ve just given me my weekend plans, thank you very much! They have a working IBM 1401 that you can see in action too!
Also a truly astonishingly beautiful babbage engine. I came from the UK to CA to see it.
⸻⸻⸻
1. It was on loan to the Computer History Museum from Myhrvold and returned to him in 2016. It's unclear whether he did re-loan it or if he's busily calculating the values of polynomials with it.² The Computer History Museum website makes it sound like it's currently on display but I can find no news stories about it going back to the museum.
2. Just kidding about him calculating polynomials—it's (I think) on display in the lobby of Intellectual Ventures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that most of the items on this list can be subdivided into two types of hype. short term hype (real advances that will happen in 1-2 years, but won't matter by 2030, because they are just a generational iteration) Over-hyped far-future research. (things where the possibilities have yet to be brought down to earth by the practical limits of implementing them broadly / cost effectively) When these things…
Interesting, I think all of those items have a good chance of actually happening ("longevity research" happening means some sort of meaningful progress). I hope there will be some unexpected breakthroughs too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This your lede answer to what is the smallest useful non toy QC: >If you are a quantum computation person developing near term applications, you probably would already start getting excited with a 100 (sufficiently long-lived) qubits. Then you go on and on and on and have one sentence about what you can do with 100 full stop period qubits. So what exactly did I misunderstand? It's just funny to me how all of you guys…
I guess I should be more careful when using handwavy terms. "Long-lived" does not have a defined meaning, so in my second answer I spelled out what you can do with a bunch of "logical" qubits and with a bunch of "physical" qubits, providing clear definitions of these words. I am not sure why you are so angry about the use of a handwavy term though, given the whole point of this thread was to introduce the topic to la…
of course there is - this is just more of exactly the same word play lol
>In 1995, Ben Schumacher provided an analogue to Shannon’s noiseless coding theorem, and in the process defined the ‘quantum bit’ or ‘qubit’ as a tangible physical resource
...
> For our elementary coding system we choose the two-level spin system, which we will call a "quantum bit" or qubit.
you can talk about surface plasmons or transmons or josephson junctions or whatever you want but the definition is always physical not logical (that's an abstraction!).
>I am not sure why you are so angry
I'm not angry - I already said what I am and that's tickled/mirthful but also bemused by the consistent evasion by the QC community to talk about physical reality.
So I think the truth is I'm not angry but you're defensive because a 100 qubit QC is useless, and moreso a 1000 qubit, even 100,000 qubit QC would be as well. But that's quite inconvenient for a research community that's publishing papers and submitting grant proposals.