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

521–530 of 557 posts

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#521

Post by mrguyorama »

debacle wrote: post #247
riiii wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'll be banned for public use in the next 2-3 years. I'm not advocating for the ban, just saying it'll happen.

It's easier to make a "ghost drone" than a "ghost gun." Banning will not be feasible for bad actors.

Banning anything is never about stopping theoretical "bad actors", it's about reducing the number of normal people who pick up "bad thing" and making mere ownership a suspicious enough act to compel investigation. It's about making things harder. A gun on a black market will be more expensive in a place that makes guns in general illegal. Small time Timmy will not be able to afford a gun to back up his desire to rob the local liquor store.

Systemic design is usually about how you affect the margins

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#522

Post by mrguyorama »

vlovich123 wrote: post #520
mrguyorama wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The common trait that all hypothetical high-fidelity simulated universes possess is the ability to produce high-fidelity simulated universes. Where have you seen this?

https://youtu.be/pmcrG7ZZKUc?t=220 If we're a simulation of a parent universe that is exactly like us just of it's past or an alternate past, then we likely should be able to achieve simulating our own universe within ourselves. Otherwise we're not actually a simulation. There's another line of counter argument that various results in QM and computing theory would suggest that it's mathematically impossible for the u…

>If we're a simulation of a parent universe that is exactly like us just of it's past or an alternate past

Yes, this is a MASSIVE and COMPLETELY UNTESTABLE if

Everything about simulation theory is like, science-hostile or something it seems.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#523

Post by johndhi »

Genuinely curious: does this make US regulators second-guess breaking up Google? Having a USA company be the first to develop quantum computing would be a major national security advantage.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#524

Post by pas »

makeworld wrote: post #476
pas wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well. Yes, but currently there are no well tested (ie. recommended by the ITsec community) post-quantum cryptosystems as far as I understand. https://crypto.stackexchange.com/a/61596 But ... AES is believed to be quantum-safe-ish, so with perfect forwards secrecy this exact threat can be quite well managed. The currently best known quantum attack on AES requires a serial computation of "half of key length" (Grover's…

Signal and Apple both use post-quantum.

I read about Signal's double-trouble tactics, but I haven't heard about Apple's.

Ah, okay for iMessage, something called PQ3[1], hm, it uses Kyber. And it's also a hybrid scheme, combining ECC. And a lot of peer review.

And there's also some formal verification for Signal's PQXDH [2].

Oh, wow, not bad. Thanks!

Now let's hope a good reliable sane implementation emerges so others can also try this scheme. (And I'm very curious of the added complexity/maintenance burden and computational costs. Though I guess this mostly runs on the end users' devices, right?)

[1] https://security.apple.com/blog/imessage-pq3/ [2] https://github.com/Inria-Prosecco/pqxdh-analysis

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#525

Post by sesm »

smolder wrote: post #498
sesm wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Many-world interpretation" is just a religion, it has nothing to do with physics. Pilot Wave is an example of a physical theory, Copenhagen is an administrative agreement.

I'm pretty sure pilot wave is the same kind of unfalsifiable interpretation of the experimental results that MWI is. Also I think people are making too big a deal out of the comment in the article. I took it as kind of tongue-in-cheek. An expert would know MWI is unfalsifiable and inconsequential.

No, Bell Inequality test falsified it.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#527

Post by qingcharles »

codeulike wrote: post #60

They opened the API for it and I'm sending requests but the response always comes back 300ms before I send the request, is there a way of handling that with try{} predestined{} blocks? Or do I need to use the Bootstrap Paradox library?

I'm trying to write a new version of Snake game in Microsoft Q# but it keeps eating its own tail.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#528

Post by vhiremath4 »

tcgv wrote: post #445
vhiremath4 wrote: post #22

I really wish the release videos made things a ~tad~ bit less technical. I know quantum computers are still very early so the target audience is technical for this kind of release, but I can’t help wonder how many more people would be excited and pulled in if they made the main release video more approachable.

If you have programming experience, you might find this interesting: back in 2019, when Google announced achieving quantum supremacy, I worked on a personal project to study the basics of quantum computing and share my learnings with others in my blog: - https://thomasvilhena.com/2019/11/quantum-computing-for-prog...

Excellent thank you!

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#529

Post by layer8 »

creata wrote: post #302
layer8 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Schrödinger equation inherently contains a multiverse. The disagreement is about whether the wave function described by the equation collapses to a single universe upon measurement (i.e. whether the equation stops holding upon measurement), or whether the different branches continue to exist (i.e. the equation continues to hold at all times), each with a different measurement outcome. Regardless, between measurem…

> The Schrödinger equation inherently contains a multiverse. Just to be clear, where in the Schrödinger equation (iħψ̇ = Hψ) is the "multiverse"?

When taking the entire universe as a quantum system governed by the Schrödinger equation, then ψ is the universal wavefunction, and its state vector can be decomposed into pointer states that represent the “branches” of MW.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#530

Post by layer8 »

Lionga wrote: post #221
layer8 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Schrödinger equation inherently contains a multiverse. The disagreement is about whether the wave function described by the equation collapses to a single universe upon measurement (i.e. whether the equation stops holding upon measurement), or whether the different branches continue to exist (i.e. the equation continues to hold at all times), each with a different measurement outcome. Regardless, between measurem…

Non of that honkey ponkey is needed if you just give up locality and a hard deterministic explanation like De-Broglie-Bohm gives all the same correct measurements and conclusions like Copenhagen interpretation without multiverses and "wave function collapses". Copenhagen interpretation is just "easier" (like oops all our calculations about the univers don't seemt to fit, lets invent "dark matter") when the correct ex…

De Broglie–Bohm doesn’t remove anything from the wave function, and thus all the pointer states therein contained are still present. The theory basically claims that one of them is special and really exists, whereas the others only mathematically exist, but philosophically it’s not clear what the difference would be. The Broglie–Bohm ontology is bigger than MW rather than smaller.
Post reply on HN