• iAvicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 hours ago

    “Microsoft is slated to back up its claims and success in quantum computing next week at an American Physical Society (APS) meeting in California.”

    Well if they try to put on a show like Elon did with his dancing robots and what not we can be %100 sure it is a pyramid scheme.

  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    a breakthrough type of material which can observe and control Majorana particles to produce more reliable and scalable qubits

    To… produce a more random random numbers generator?

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Check it, yo. In the 90s all the articles and rumors around quantum computing were exactly the same. Exactly.

    Whenever I hear about some new quantum computing breakthrough, I spend about five seconds wondering if it’s real and then I feel very nostalgic because no, it never is.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Sure, sure and it’s interesting stuff. But not anywhere near useful in the sense people mean when they talk about computers.

        • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          They are as useful as the Large Hadron Collider, or the New Horizons probe.

          They are instruments of practical scientific research. They may have some return in useful technology or not, but science is always worth it.

    • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Except quantum computers do indeed exist right now, and did not in the 90’s. Sadly, the hype and corporate interests still make it difficult to tell truth from nonsense.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yeah, sure they exist. Much like the ENIAC. And it’s cool stuff to work with. It’s just not anywhere close to practical. And it never has been.

    • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      If you had asked someone in the 90s if they could imagine half the shit that we have technologically they wouldn’t believe it. Just because something seems surreal, doesn’t mean it’s fake.

      Whether this new chip can do the things it claims we’ll see soon enough.

        • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          The ideas have always been there, it’s just a bottle neck on cheap electronics and people figuring out the foundation technology. I can’t think of to many tech advancements that have surprised me; that’s not too say they aren’t impressive, but just about anything we can imagine is possible.

          The main thing I don’t expect to see is useful and reliable brain/electronics interfaces. I think biology is too unique for an of the shelf product to be possible, which means it’s too hard to make a profitable product.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Of course. Not a single quantum computer has done anything but test programs and quantum-specific benchmarks. Until a quantum computer finally does something a normal computer regularly does, but faster, we should simply ignore this area.

    • Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      until it’s better we should simply ignore this

      That seems like a strange comment to make. How will it get better if we don’t spend the time and effort to make it better?

  • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Yeah, most quantum science at the moment is largely fraudulent. It’s not just Microsoft. It’s being developed because it’s being taught in business schools as the next big thing, not because anybody has any way to use it.

    Any of the “quantum computers” you see in the news are nothing more than press releases about corporate emulators functioning how they think it might work if it did work, but it’s far too slow to be used for anything.

    • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Quantum science is not fraudulent, incredible leaps are being made with the immense influx of funding.

      Quantum industry is a different beast entirely, with scientific rigour being corrupted by stock price management.

      It’s an objective fact that quantum computers indeed exist now, but only at a very basic prototype level. Don’t trust anything a journalist says about them, but they are real, and they are based on technology we had no idea if would ever be possible.

      • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Well, I love being wrong! Are you able to show a documented quantum experiment that was carried out on a quantum computer (and not an emulator using a traditional architecture)?

        How about a use case that isn’t simply for breaking encryption, benchmarking, or something deeply theoretical that they have no way to know how to actually program for or use in the real world?

        I’m not requesting these proofs to be snarky, but simply because I’ve never seen anything else beyond what I listed.

        When I see all the large corporations mentioning the processing power of these things, they’re simply mentioning how many times they can get an emulated tied bit to flip, and then claiming grandiose things for investors. That’s pretty much it. To me, that’s fraudulent (or borderline) corporate BS.

        • SmoothOperator@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          Hell yes! I’d love to share some stuff.

          One good example of a quantum computer is the Lukin group neutral atoms work. As the paper discusses, they managed to perform error correction procedures making 48 actual logical qubits and performing operations on them. Still not all that practically useful, but it exists, and is extremely impressive from a physics experiment viewpoint.

          There are also plenty of meaningful reports on non-emulated machines from the corporate world. From the big players examples include the Willow chip from Google and Heron from IBM being actual real quantum devices doing actual (albeit basic) operations. Furthermore there are a plethora of smaller companies like OQC and Pasqal with real machines.

          On applications, this review is both extensive and sober, outlining the known applications with speedups, costs and drawbacks. Among the most exciting are Fermi-Hubbard model dynamics (condensed matter stuff), which is predicted to have exponential speedup with relatively few resources. These all depend on a relatively narrow selection of tricks, though. Among interesting efforts to fundamentally expand what tricks are available is this work from the Babbush group.

          Let me know if that’s not what you were looking for.

    • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s…not shocking exactly, but a little surprising and a lot disappointing that so much of finance is now targeted at “let’s make a thing that we read about in sci fi novels we read as kids.”

      Focusing on STEM and not the humanities means we have a bunch of engineers who think “book thing cool” and have zero understanding of how allegory works.

      • pycorax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        Most competent engineers don’t think that. They know and understand the limitations of what they’re working on. They just do it because the finance bros pay.

      • anomnom@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        Elno has just reinforced that if you lie enough to become a billionaire, that the market will reward you for YEARS. Possibly forever of you don’t let them find out your a power hungry amazing who want to ruin the whole country.

    • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I just saw on Linked In that in 12 months “quantum AI” is going to be where it’s at. Uh… really? Do I hear “crypto-quantum AI?”

    • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      You can tell when someone is lying about their work in quantum physics when they claim to understand quantum physics.