What do you expect from the company which promised that windows 10 would be the last one? xD
Maybe they were smoking too much Majorana.
What’s next Theranus doesn’t actually make thousand dollar tests for a dollar?
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.
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.
I just assume it’s in a superposition of both being real and not real at the same time.
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.
I mean, I was a kid in the 90s and I feel like we’re behind what I expected in most respects.
This is a piece of alleged technology that is based on basic physics that has not been established.
That does sound like a problem.
I love these slides about how quantum cryptography attacks are a made up scenario https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/bollocks.pdf
Dude is a comedic genius
Prime factorisation is indeed nobody’s primary idea of what a quantum computer will be useful for in practice any time soon, but it cannot be denied that Shor’s algorithm is the first and only method of prime factorisation we have discovered which can finish in realistic time with realistic resources.
And that means that RSA is no longer as safe as it once was, justifying the process of finding alternatives.
I’m sorry - did you read the slides?
Indeed I did. They seem to be pointing to the fact that current machines are not factoring primes in any serious way.
Does this contradict my point?
We should find out next week at APS Global if it’s really a problem or a case of Physicist Sergey Frolov, the author of that quote, failing to understand what’s been done.
Microsoft could be full of shit about Majorana 1 of course but it would be damned odd for them to make a claim like this without being able to back it up; the fallout would be horrendous.
I have to agree with this. Say what you will about MS, but it’d be odd to claim something this crazy that they can’t at least sorta backup.
AI will figure it out my dude!!
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.
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.
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 weakening encryption (or something deeply theoretical that they have no way to know how to actually program for)?
I’m not requesting these to be snarky, but simply because I’ve never seen anything else.
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.
So glad we dereguled the market so everything is a crypto scam now.
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?”
I used a hybrid of near-shore telepresence and on-site scrum sessions to move fast and put the quantum metaverse on a content-addressable de-fi AI blockchain
Fascinating. Where do I sign up?
QUANTUM AI? IN my blockchain? It’s more likely than you think!
deleted by creator
Crypto-quantum AI+ MaXX?
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.
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.
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.
It’s laser time boys!
BOYZ!!
Slammed or lightly pounded?
SLAMMED
COME ON AND SLAM
AND WELCOME TO THE JAM
Microsoft:
You can tell that someone is lying about their work in quantum physics when they claim to understand quantum physics.
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.
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?
The idea is not to have three worthless announcements per week. They can get better all they want, and come back once they have tangible results.
With quantum computing if you ignore it you are simultaneously not ignoring it?
I don’t think so, but yes.
