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

Willow, Our Quantum Chip

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 557 posts

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#121

Post by mperham »

echelon wrote: post #94
winwang wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit after skimming arxiv preprint[1]: Yeah, this is pretty huge. They achieved the result with surface codes, which are general ECCs. The repetition code was used to further probe quantum ECC floor. "Just POC" likely doesn't do it justice. (Original comment): Also quantum dabbler (coincidentally dabbled in bitflip quantum error correction research). Skimmed the post/research blog. I believe the key point is the scal…

Google could put themselves and everyone else out of business if the algorithms that underpin our ability to do e-commerce and financial transactions can be defeated. Goodbye not just to Bitcoin, but also Visa, Stripe, Amazon shopping, ...

Right? Does TLS1.3 have the underpinnings to use quantum-proof encryption algos?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/post-quantu...

https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2024/10/09...

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#122

Post by hshshshshsh »

wasabi991011 wrote: post #35
jawns wrote: post #8

> It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse I see the evidence, and I see the conclusion, but there's a lot of ellipses between the evidence and the conclusion. Do quantum computing folks really think that we are borrowing capacity from other universes for these calculations?

I was also really taken aback by this quote. I have no idea who put it there, but I can assure you the actual paper contains no such nonsense. I would have thought whoever writes the google tech blogs is more competent than bottom tier science journalists. But in this case I think it is more reasonable to assume malice, as the post is authored by the Google Quantum AI Lead, and makes more sense as hype-boosting buzzw…

Quantum computation done in done multiple universes is the explanation given by David Deutsch the father of Quantum Computing. He invented the idea of a quantum computer to test the idea of parallel universes.

If you are okay with a single universe coming to existence out of nothing you should be able to handle parallel universes as well just fine.

Also your comment does not have any useful information. You assumed hype as the reason why they mentioned parallel computing. It's just a bias you have on looking at world. Hype does helps explain a lot of things. So it can be tempting to use it as a placeholder for anything that you don't accept based on your current set of beliefs.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#123

Post by [deleted] »

readyplayernull wrote: post #11

> It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse, a prediction first made by David Deutsch. Processing in multiverse. Would that mean we are inyecting entropy into those other verses? Could we calculate how many are there from the time it takes to do a given calculation? We need to cool the quantum chip in our universe, ho…

[deleted]

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#124

Post by wasabi991011 »

winwang wrote: post #85
vessenes wrote: post #18

I’m a quantum dabbler so I’ll throw out an armchair reaction: this is a significant announcement. My memory is that 256 bit keys in non quantum resistant algos need something like 2500 qubits or so; and by that I mean generally useful programmable qubits. To show a bit over 100 qubits with stability, meaning the information survives a while, long enough to be read, and general enough to run some benchmarks on is some…

Edit after skimming arxiv preprint[1]: Yeah, this is pretty huge. They achieved the result with surface codes, which are general ECCs. The repetition code was used to further probe quantum ECC floor. "Just POC" likely doesn't do it justice. (Original comment): Also quantum dabbler (coincidentally dabbled in bitflip quantum error correction research). Skimmed the post/research blog. I believe the key point is the scal…

You got the main idea, it's a proof-of-concept: that a class of error-correcting code on real physical quantum chips obey the threshold theorem, as is expected based on theory and simulations.

However the main scaling of error correction is via surface codes, not repetition codes. It's an important point as surface codes correct all Pauli errors, not just either bit-flips or phase-flips.

They use repetition codes as a diagnostic method in this paper more than anything, it is not the main result.

In particular, I interpret the quote you used as: "We want to scale surface codes even more, and if we were able to do the same scaling with surface codes as we are able to do with repetition codes, then this is the behaviour we would expect."

Edit: Welp, saw your edit, you came to the same conclusion yourself in the time it took me to write my comment.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#125

Post by hshshshshsh »

gaze wrote: post #12
jawns wrote: post #8

> It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse I see the evidence, and I see the conclusion, but there's a lot of ellipses between the evidence and the conclusion. Do quantum computing folks really think that we are borrowing capacity from other universes for these calculations?

I'm upset they put this in because this is absolutely not the view of most quantum foundations researchers.

Science is not based on consensus seeking.

Science is about coming up with the best explanations irrespective of whether or not a large chunk does not believe it.

And best explanations are the ones that is hard to vary. Not the one that is most widely accepted or easy to accept based on the current world view.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#126

Post by bangaladore »

mperham wrote: post #121
echelon wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google could put themselves and everyone else out of business if the algorithms that underpin our ability to do e-commerce and financial transactions can be defeated. Goodbye not just to Bitcoin, but also Visa, Stripe, Amazon shopping, ...

Right? Does TLS1.3 have the underpinnings to use quantum-proof encryption algos? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/post-quantu... https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2024/10/09...

It seems you can get TLS 1.3 (or atlest slighty modified 1.3) to be quantum secure, but it increases the handshake size by roughly 9x. Cloudflare unfortunately didn't mention much about the other downsides though.

https://blog.cloudflare.com/kemtls-post-quantum-tls-without-...

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#127

Post by bluSCALE4 »

echelon wrote: post #94
winwang wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit after skimming arxiv preprint[1]: Yeah, this is pretty huge. They achieved the result with surface codes, which are general ECCs. The repetition code was used to further probe quantum ECC floor. "Just POC" likely doesn't do it justice. (Original comment): Also quantum dabbler (coincidentally dabbled in bitflip quantum error correction research). Skimmed the post/research blog. I believe the key point is the scal…

Google could put themselves and everyone else out of business if the algorithms that underpin our ability to do e-commerce and financial transactions can be defeated. Goodbye not just to Bitcoin, but also Visa, Stripe, Amazon shopping, ...

Why is no one else talking about this? I came here to see a discussion about this and encryption.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#128

Post by bluSCALE4 »

wasabi991011 wrote: post #118
d3m0t3p wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IF (and that's a big if) that's true then it means they can factorize number into primes with this quantum computer and break encryption.

No, that's not what that means. Not sure what you mean by the "that" when you say "if that's true", but there is nothing in this thread or by google that is anywhere close to breaking encryption.

How are you so sure? If something that takes years is completed in minutes, how is encryption safe?

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#130

Post by benbayard »

christkv wrote: post #14
nuz wrote: post #4

Every time this comes up people say they're not actually useful for ML. Is that true? And if not what would they be useful for

In principal NP complete problems is my guess.

AFAIK, which is not much, I believe it is problems that you can turn in to a cycle. Right now we pull out answers from quantum computers at random, but typically do not know what the inputs were that got that answer. But if you can get the answers from the quantum computer to be cyclical you can use that symmetry to get all the information you need.
Post reply on HN