Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

newsroom.ibm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 325 posts

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#311

Post by krastanov »

tubby12345 wrote: post #310
krastanov wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are splitting hairs and picking arbitrary ways to interpret what I am saying. I would be excited, it would be useful, it would be great to work with a 100 physical qubits, so that we can test control schemes, small error correction procedures, maybe some entanglement purificant circuits, etc. You are willfully misinterpreting at this point.

no you are willfully misinterpreting this question posed by a layman >what's the smallest useful (as in, 'non-toy', or maybe 'worth buying time on') quantum computer? this question is not about papers or research - it is about value for problems/questions outside QC. simple as that. the answer to that question is ~100,000 physical qubits not 100 . again this whole exchange with you just further reaffirms that there's…

And if you actually read my answer you see that I agree and in the first paragraph say that you would need around 1M physical qubits for anything practical!? The second paragraph specifically says it is about researchers in the field trying to push the field forward, playing with 100 physical qubits (yes, that usually involves writing papers).

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#312

Post by gfodor »

m0zg wrote: post #247
alasdair_ wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any particular insight why 2022? Facebook, Apple and others are releasing their first AR glasses then.

And there will be approximately zero non-gimmick software for them until at least 2032, if it ever materializes at all.

AR "FaceTime" (beaming in an avatar of another person to spend time with) will be a killer app.

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#313

Post by krylon »

nixpulvis wrote: post #132
krylon wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The omission of proper technical details is essentially the same as lying. Welcome, child, to the beautiful/"special" world of marketing!

Be gone fetus, for there has always been honest marketing. It's just harder to find, sadly.

Oh, I do not deny there are honest marketing people. But there are plenty of people in that game happy to omit some inconvenient factoids. And as always, those are the ones giving their craft as a whole a bad name.

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#314

Post by walleeee »

gfodor wrote: post #302
walleeee wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is desirable?

Desirable or not is subjective, but what's not as subjective is the liklihood of this technology stack arriving and becoming popular, which seems very likely/guaranteed at this point.

it does seem likely to arrive but whether it becomes popular more difficult to predict as it's conditioned on the sway of public opinion, which seems heterogeneous regarding AR/VR

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#316

Post by richardw »

javajosh wrote: post #268
richardw wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non animal food. Will transform land use. Remote education. Available to any kid or adult anywhere.

I think we're learning the limits of screen-based education now. There's something about being in the same room with a person at a chalkboard that is far more effective - at least anecdotally. (I'd be surprised if there wasn't research backing this up). And this seems deeply unfortunate if true, because it means the cost of learning can't go all the way to the ground.

Two thoughts: Africa can’t afford in-person teachers. The ones in my country are not great on average.

I couldn’t learn maths in class. Too distracted, too annoyed with stupid questions. But I increased 3 symbols in 3 school terms with a slide projector and audio tape, where I could focus and rewind. Teacher there was for bits I didn’t learn from the slides. I’m probably in the minority but I’m sure there are more of me.

Digital education catches kids like me and kids who have no access to excellent educators. And marginal cost is zero, so no harm in giving access to the world.

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#317

Post by dhosek »

dhosek wrote: post #298
hkt wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also a truly astonishingly beautiful babbage engine. I came from the UK to CA to see it.

You do know that there's one in London at the Science Museum (the one that was ¹ in California was built at the same time for Nathan Myhrvold). ⸻⸻⸻ 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 d…

I was curious enough to actually contact IV and confirm that the other Difference Engine No 2 is, in fact, in their lobby.

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#318

Post by samus »

xondono wrote: post #285
samus wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Babbage's technology was feasible in principle. The differential engine was successfully built as a museum project, though it was complicated by Babbage not leaving behind detailed plans[0]. It can be argued that gear-based computational engines face inherent technical challenges that electrical designs don't. But simpler, far more successful versions of mechanical calculators have been developed as well[1]. There is…

> The differential engine was successfully built as a museum project …with modern CNCs. It was simply not feasible at the time to build the parts required with enough precision, that’s what I meant by “no impact”, no one built on it because by the time we had the tools to build it, the tools where better than the thing itself. As for the “along the way” argument, for me that’s a non-starter. We could use the same arg…

The link I referenced stated that care was taken to ensure the tolerances required were achievable by 19th century technology. The biggest difficulty was in refining the designs into actionable manufacturing plans. Of course they used CNC; why mess up at the last step.

For both moon landing and quantum computing the challenges were recognized to be enormous, but achievable by unthrottling the money faucet. Cold fusion is different because there is not even a theoretical venue ahead. It would be a true search in the dark at this point.

Yes, I recognize that these astronomical projects were seldom launched with purely scientific goals in mind, and I wish humanity would do it for the science in the future.

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#319

Post by m0zg »

gfodor wrote: post #312
m0zg wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there will be approximately zero non-gimmick software for them until at least 2032, if it ever materializes at all.

AR "FaceTime" (beaming in an avatar of another person to spend time with) will be a killer app.

But you aren't "spending time" with that person. You're spending time with that person's poorly rendered avatar. You can't even hear them properly. You can't see them at all. You can't touch them or read a lot of the nonverbal cues. And for the privilege of not being in their presence, you also need to pay several hundred (if not thousands, this being Apple) dollars, and both sides need to use Apple products. I very strongly suspect that all but the most ardent Apple fans will pass on this generous offer.

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#320

Post by samus »

m0zg wrote: post #282
samus wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The How is not the issue. A combination of various drugs or an opiate overdose should do the trick. It's already legal in Switzerland, Canada, and Belgium. Voluntary euthanasia is ultimately challenging because of similar legal issues as with the death penalty - it cannot be undone, and there are forces in society that can lead individuals to use it for other reasons than just being over and done with suffering throu…

That's the point. As long as I'm lucid I should have full bodily autonomy, including the decision to shuffle off this mortal coil. In fact I already have control over this decision. > and there are forces in society So? You're going to tell me I can't go anytime I want to? That's not the case even now. It's just that now I'd have to procure the nitrogen myself (which isn't difficult), and my relatives would have to d…

Again, I am aware that there is no core technological or logistical issue. The issue is purely societal. Yes, I can get behind enabling people to specify policies on what to do when untreatable or mental diseases kick in.

The death penalty does not exist to reduce the suffering of the convicted, but to get rid of them. The true issue with the death penalty is that it can't be graduated (except by adding "cruel and unusual punishment") and it can't be undone. Prison sentences can be legally challenged and the innocent can be freed early.

There is a real slippery slope here: what length of prison sentence is considered to be worse than the death penalty? An additional thing to consider is that many countries without the death sentence actually don't impose true life sentences, but very longish ones (upwards from 20 years). Confinement for life is for those irredeemly judged to be a threat to society after their sentence. Compared to that, many death row inmates actually spend decades fighting their sentence. They could end it at any time if they wanted.

Post reply on HN