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

301–310 of 325 posts

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#301

Post by gfodor »

oezi wrote: post #182
gfodor wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Passthrough AR isn't glasses AR, and is much more likely to be rapidly made capable. Lynx-R launches in Q1, and Meta's and Apple's headsets will likely use passthrough AR next year. https://lynx-r.com/

I definitely hope for something novel with video see-through HMDs as they used to call them in 2002 [1] when I last worked on them. Latency wasn't solved last I checked and viewpoint offset is still an issue that throws users off. [1] https://static.aminer.org/pdf/PDF/000/273/730/ar_table_tenni...

Latency is pretty good on Quest 1 - I haven't tried Quest 2. Looking forward to getting a Lynx to gauge how close we are to something good.

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#302

Post by gfodor »

walleeee wrote: post #185
gfodor wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A hardware/software proxy that governs all photons you see.

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.

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#303

Post by krastanov »

tubby12345 wrote: post #300
krastanov wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>There is no such thing as "full stop period" qubits, hence the confusion. 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 "q…

You are making up claims about what people say and then get angry/tickled/mirthful about those made up claims. All throughout this thread people working in the field explicitly say that you can not use this device for simulating chemistry or factoring numbers and admit that you need at least about a million physical qubits (about a thousand logical qubits) to start doing these things reliably. How can you then claim that we are trying to hide it because it is "inconvenient"? This is the big thing to solve in our field, mentioned in every single research proposal, not some hidden secret we are ashamed of. And your refusal to distinguish physical and logical qubits is just silly and leading to your confusion.

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#305

Post by dr_dshiv »

rwmj wrote: post #13

Interesting that the number of qubits is approximately doubling every year according to the article.

Yeah, and with the QuEra MIT startup announcing a 256 qubit computer today — just a day after IBM — the rate of exponential change might be even higher. We could get to a million Qubits by mid December!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29259549

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#306

Post by tubby12345 »

krastanov wrote: post #303
tubby12345 wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is no such thing as "full stop period" qubits, hence the confusion. 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 "q…

You are making up claims about what people say and then get angry/tickled/mirthful about those made up claims. All throughout this thread people working in the field explicitly say that you can not use this device for simulating chemistry or factoring numbers and admit that you need at least about a million physical qubits (about a thousand logical qubits) to start doing these things reliably. How can you then claim…

>And your refusal to distinguish physical and logical qubits is just silly and leading to your confusion.

...bruh i'm a phd student whose work supports SQMS at fermilab (not in physics but cs). i'm not confused about absolutely any of the terms or definitions. hint: you're not the only QC researcher in the room at all times.

>You are making up claims about what people say and then get angry/tickled/mirthful about those made up claims.

i'm not making anything up - this comment

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29245025

doesn't say absolutely anything about error correction and just vaguely alludes to coherent qubits being somehow different from physical qubits. like are you kidding me claiming that you're being transparent while reporting 100 anything without immediately revealing that it's actually 100k? somehow in your mind 3 orders of magnitude isn't a big deal when communicating relevancy/value/merit?

for a farcical analogy: can you imagine me reporting 100 dead corps and then come to find out i'm talking about 100 corporations being massacred, each corporation employing 1000 people.

there is no other academic discipline that plays this slight-of-hand. i'll give you another analogy that should be near and dear to your heart and will illustrate the point very precisely: can you imagine daniel simon saying he proved separation of BQP and BPP and not immediately (in the same sentence) revealing that it was oracle separation?

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#307

Post by krastanov »

tubby12345 wrote: post #306
krastanov wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making up claims about what people say and then get angry/tickled/mirthful about those made up claims. All throughout this thread people working in the field explicitly say that you can not use this device for simulating chemistry or factoring numbers and admit that you need at least about a million physical qubits (about a thousand logical qubits) to start doing these things reliably. How can you then claim…

>And your refusal to distinguish physical and logical qubits is just silly and leading to your confusion. ...bruh i'm a phd student whose work supports SQMS at fermilab (not in physics but cs). i'm not confused about absolutely any of the terms or definitions. hint: you're not the only QC researcher in the room at all times. >You are making up claims about what people say and then get angry/tickled/mirthful about tho…

Again, read that series of comments again. I am saying I would be excited to work with a device with 100 physical qubits, not 100k. You are making up the least charitable possible interpretation of an offhand comment and getting angry at your imagination.

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#308

Post by tubby12345 »

krastanov wrote: post #307
tubby12345 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And your refusal to distinguish physical and logical qubits is just silly and leading to your confusion. ...bruh i'm a phd student whose work supports SQMS at fermilab (not in physics but cs). i'm not confused about absolutely any of the terms or definitions. hint: you're not the only QC researcher in the room at all times. >You are making up claims about what people say and then get angry/tickled/mirthful about tho…

Again, read that series of comments again. I am saying I would be excited to work with a device with 100 physical qubits, not 100k. You are making up the least charitable possible interpretation of an offhand comment and getting angry at your imagination.

lololol you keep dancing around the issue - now we're on to comparing "excited" to "useful"; the question wasn't what you're excited to work with (i'm excited to work with 5 qubits through qiskit). the question, plain as day:

>what's the smallest useful (as in, 'non-toy', or maybe 'worth buying time on') quantum computer?

very obviously this person isn't asking about useful for writing papers...

>You are making up the least charitable possible interpretation of an offhand comment

nothing imagined here. just english. sorry.

> and getting angry at your imagination.

lol you keep insisting i'm angry. i mean if a reviewer reviews your submission and calls you out for inflating numbers i guess they're angry too? oh well

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#309

Post by krastanov »

tubby12345 wrote: post #308
krastanov wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, read that series of comments again. I am saying I would be excited to work with a device with 100 physical qubits, not 100k. You are making up the least charitable possible interpretation of an offhand comment and getting angry at your imagination.

lololol you keep dancing around the issue - now we're on to comparing "excited" to "useful"; the question wasn't what you're excited to work with (i'm excited to work with 5 qubits through qiskit). the question, plain as day: >what's the smallest useful (as in, 'non-toy', or maybe 'worth buying time on') quantum computer? very obviously this person isn't asking about useful for writing papers... >You are making up th…

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.

Re: IBM unveils 127-qubit quantum processor

#310

Post by tubby12345 »

krastanov wrote: post #309
tubby12345 wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lololol you keep dancing around the issue - now we're on to comparing "excited" to "useful"; the question wasn't what you're excited to work with (i'm excited to work with 5 qubits through qiskit). the question, plain as day: >what's the smallest useful (as in, 'non-toy', or maybe 'worth buying time on') quantum computer? very obviously this person isn't asking about useful for writing papers... >You are making up th…

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 a very very strong reality distortion field around this entire area of academia.

Post reply on HN