Pic related

Can it break my RSA keys? No? Then I don't really care

It's an important first step to have developed a quantum algorithm. The important things come later.

The first quantum algorithm? I'm pretty sure we've had those since the '70s.

They're bullshitting. Quantum computing is pure fantasy.

"developed" was a poor word. "implemented" may be more appropriate.
We've never actually run these algorithms before.

is the capability of a quantum computer due to being able to have both a 0 and 1 in place simultaneously? I'm interested in what this means for encryption. If OP pic is realistic and it did in 30 seconds what would take 50 trillion hours, brute forcing AES-256 would take seconds.

Do you think the government will forbid individuals with no special licenses from owning a quantum computer?

Nope

Its algorithm dependant.
AES remains quantum safe AFAIK (doesnt mean there cant be a quantum algorithm to break it, it is just not public knowledge atm).

Diffie Hellman and RSA are at risk though.

Do you think they can?

that's like asking if the government could possibly ban anyone from owning processors as we know them now. Quantum processors are niche products now and will be for a long while. But if there's money to be made, you can guarantee companies making them are going to try and push them to consumer markets.

>is the capability of a quantum computer due to being able to have both a 0 and 1 in place simultaneously?
I suppose that's one way of thinking about it, but it's less about what any one QuBit contains and more about the route that any QuBit goes down. In deterministic algorithms you can either go down route A if Bit = 0 or route B if Bit = 1. In Nondeterministic a single Qubit can go down both. So that if you're traversing a non-ordered tree or length 9, deterministic could take up to 2^9 tries, whereas non-deterministic will go down all of them and hit the right one the first time (while also hitting all the wrong ones; so how you get the right number on that depends on interference, as quantum computers and hand-wavy non-deterministic computers are not the same thing).

The bottom line for encryption is that people have figured out the quantum algorithms needed to break common encryption. And they're about 1/70th the way there, with the prospect of scaling up quantum computers looking grim so far.

every single time the quantum computer meme has been tried, it turns into another publicity stunt with no actual products. given the fact that google, due to antitrust regulations, isn't even really allowed to sell hardware, i don't see why they would have a "quantum CPU" outside of an old radio tube they figured out they can simulate 'radio tube heating' simulations on faster than a cloud server.

False flag. If they had it, they wouldn't publicize it.

The glow in the darks will have it first and will be able to break all encryption when they have it working. They’ll probably keep that shit secret for years before the public finds out, and specifically avoid doing anything that could alert the public that they have it, like helping the FBI with anything or anything like that.

Sounds like that DNA computer I heard about. It could calculate things amazingly fast, but the problem was the answer was obscured by piles of messy garbage and it took a massive amount of time to actually sort it out and find the answer that was solved so fast.

Quantum buzzword for unhelpful tech """""journalism""""" bullshit.

Go back to réddit

Wouldn't quantum computing essentially make P=NP and break all encryption?

>Wouldn't quantum computing essentially make P=NP
No. Just because NP is something that now makes sense and is useable (but not really, because, again, nondeterministic computers and quantum computers are not necessarily the same thing) doesn't mean that magically, mathematically P = NP.

> and break all encryption?
All common encryption, yes, if it were large enough.

Let me put it like this:
P1: "I made a deterministic algebra engine."
P2: "Well I made a non-deterministic algebra engine."
P1: "Does that mean they're the same thing?"
P2: "No, shut up pleb, I made something better than you, just deal with it."
P1: "Not necessarily, meanie! I'll prove that P = NP and that you made the exact same thing as me!"
P2: "Well Ok, then do it, because that would be impressive and I would be impressed with that!"

Get it?

Did they give any actual data? Like how many qubits they can store and compute on?

>How accurate is their claim?
Well it's possible with some edge cases like Simon's problem that gives an exponential speedup. Or even a quadratic speedup, like with Grover's algorithm, could be big given huge sizes.
Or in the more general cae quantum walk algorithms.

The idea is, if a process is quantum in nature, and evolves with a Hamiltonian, you have high chances of finding a quantum algorithm that simulates that hamiltonian at a significant speedup compared to a classical algorithm.
It's like running code on bare metal vs a very,very performance reducing virtual machine; classical simulation of quantum processes is extremely inefficient. Even simulating qubits with classical computers is terribly inefficient, and the reason scientists *need* actual quantum computers to test their quantum algorithms in practice.

The catch is that the "speedup" is usually in quantum query complexity, not circuit complexity, i.e. how many queries you need to a hypothetical database to get the required result and not how many gates.
This along with the fact that classical computers have achieved huge numbers of gates, while quantum state of the art is being able to store/process just a couple dozens of qubits, makes me believe that that algorithm they used must be an edge case with exponential speedup, to be able to outperform a classical computer using just a few qubits.

I think journalism should be abolished.

>Did they give any actual data? Like how many qubits they can store and compute on?
I believe they said it was 72 Qubits.

Yeah alright, thanks

Can someone explain to a brainlet how a qubit works and how it makes things go fast?

no, literally nobody here can. Neither can journalists.
>they are faster for calculations with huge data sets
that's the best you're going to get from anyone who isn't in the field. And it's probably so complicated that those who are won't bother trying to explain it.

>It could calculate things amazingly fast, but the problem was the answer was obscured by piles of messy garbage and it took a massive amount of time to actually sort it out and find the answer that was solved so fast.
Yeah that's exactly it.
You don't get a "solution" but a quantum state that is a superposition of all answers (including your solution among the wrong ones). You look at the quantum state and cause it to collapse at a single answer (state). You have no idea whether it's the correct one, but you have a probability distribution that tells you you have "good" chances that it collapses to the correct one. So you run the computation multiple times, collapsing it every time, and see what it collapsed to most of the times (and has to be much more times that state than others), and then you accept that as your solution.

Nah. I'll just explain the difference between determinism and nondeterminism.

You reach a fork in the road. In determinism world you have to DETERMINE: do I go left or do I go right? In nondeterminism world, you say "wtf is determine? I'm going leftright." and you go both paths.

If the old adage is true and all roads lead to Rome then determinism guy and determinism guy both reach Rome.

If it ain't, then Determinism Guy took a wrong term at Albuquerque and reached the north pole. Whereas non-determinism guy reached Reno, Chicago, Fargo, Minnesota, Buffalo, Toronto, Winslow, Sarasota, Wichita, Tulsa, Ottawa, Oklahoma, Tampa, Panama, Mattawa, La Paloma, Bangor, Baltimore, Salvador, Amarillo, Tocopilla, Barranquilla, and Padilla. And the north pole. And Rome.

>break all encryption?
Not really. Just some ciphers.
However there are already quantum resistant cryptography methods, like lattice cryptography.

Not everything is bad though, quantum has some unexpected good side-effects for privacy and cryptography.
For instance you can't copy things (no cloning theorem). It's mathematically impossible to create a copy of a quantum string of qubits.
This means nobody can go copying and sharing or selling your passwords and data. They have to be "stolen" like a physical object, in a sense that once they take it, the original is gone. This makes
it trivial to spot security breaches instantly.

Secondly, this property provides a way for completely *secure* key exchange. You can be certain that no wiretapping has occurred during the key exchange cause there is an algorithm to detect any possible attempt and alert you, at which point you abort and start again until no wiretapping occurs.
This makes the public key cryptography concept obsolete, cause you don't even need a public key (that a quantum computer can easily crack for most commonly used algorithms) when you can exchange private keys securely.
So you lose some, you win some.

stop parroting the nonsense explanation for journalists.

Quit excusing your ignorance. I'll admit I'm not the keenest on quantum mechanics and maybe I missteped there, but as a mathematician I certainly know the difference between P and NP.

Ok here's the thing.
Here's a bit: 0
Here's another: 1

Here's a qubit: sqrt(2)/4•0 + sqrt(14)/4•1
All this means is if you measure that bit, i.e. "look" at it to see what it is, you'll get a simple, classical 0 bit with probability 2/16 (the square of what's in front of 0), and a simple, classical 1 bit with probability 14/16.

So in general, in a simple case, a qubit is described as: a•0 + b•1, where a^2+b^2=1.
You see a qubit has far more possibilities, cause you can choose many, many different a and b that satisfy that equation, and that will give you a valid qubit.
While a single classical bit has only 2 possibilities, 0 and 1.
Imagine a classical bit being a 1L jar of wine, either white wine (0) or red wine (1).
A qubit is a 1L jar with a bit of red and a bit of white wine, any mixture that you want as long as the total is still 1L. See, you have many more possibilities depending on what ratios of ed and white you chose, and all will taste a bit differently.

And because of these many more possibilities and that fine tuning, *sometimes* for *some* things, you can do clever mixtures using many qubits, where some ratios of the first couple qubits cancel out with the ratios you used on later qubits (interference), and arrive to a final mixture that strongly tastes like what you wanted it to (the solution to your problem), using far less steps. Because you were allowed to finetune the process much better by mixing them instead of using only purely red or purely white wine.
The tradeoff is your wine tastes *mostly* as what you wanted it to, but not exclusively. So you have to take a couple sips to make sure it's what you wanted. (i.e. the result is probabilistic and if you run the computation many times, the correct solution will show up more times than the wrong ones).

thanks fren
never heard that explanation before from shit for brains sjw journos, but it makes perfect sense.

It'll make cryptography a bitch when it's actually at the useful stage

*Specific task
If want to find out for yourself i believe ibm will start selling the ibm q soon

>They may be inventing GOD
This shit always gets to me.
Why is it that hardcore materialists will go right to idolotry and worshiping a hunk of silicon the moment they stop understanding how it works, yet they'll laugh at the idea of a transcendent creator before time.

>alpha and omega, begginer of all things
lol user, don't be dumb
>a lump of silicon that can count really fast
holy shit we bilt godd !!111

tl;dr - a christfag rants about atheists worshipping rocks that can count

nigger you're still ten times dumber than them. At least they have SOMETHING. You have nothing but thousands of years of lies and manipulation.

The Gibson

Show me the money Google, fucking do something with it

It's very accurate, but only applies to certain equations. Quantum computing is not a new way of doing tasks moderm computers do, but instead more of an advanced form of hardware acceleration, able to compelte certain algorithms extremely quickly while entirely unable to interpret/process others, and with lots of error compared to regular computing.

A.I. code is a lie
it doesn't exist

in reality it is 50000 chinaman clicking everyday for 2 dollars per hour

youtu.be/tMZgRTQ-hv4?t=91

>nigger you're still ten times dumber than them.
calm down user.

>At least they have SOMETHING.
A rock that can count fast, made by men's hands. You might as well worship your calculator.

My frustration from this comes more from the mysticising of technology out of ignorance than the theological hypocricy of its claimants. No, ML won't kill us all, no, quantum computers are not gods. Stop deifying literal sand.

>You have nothing but thousands of years of lies and manipulation.
Reminder that Judaism != Odinism != Buddhism.
Reminder that religious or not, people are super shitty, manipulative, hypocritical, and evil (but Christianity has the balls to admit it).
Reminder that any belief system can be warped into an excuse for evil, no matter how true it is or not (the same as any philosophy or ideology). Consider for intance the atheist mobs in revolutionary France.

I have class early tommorow, do you have anything to add that i haven't heard a thousand times before?

>christnigger spewing garbage
ah i see its a day that ends in Y

>if it doesn't bring me money, it doesn't matter, goyim!
>who needs knowledge and understanding!

Attached: 1544666615246.jpg (425x625, 70K)

that explanation was pretty good for a brainlet like me thanks

I think 2025 will be when they do something with it, commercially.

Gotta work on a language bridge between quantum and binary.

It's absolute zero computation

Go derp derp somewhere else

Binary computers will become illegal and sexist in 2025.

Are you saying God created Google? Or that God spoke to Google engineers and allowed them to create their Quantum computers?

You don't need a quantum computer for that, user. If it's anything less than 4096-bit, consider it garbage.

sounds like analog desu

Its not actually that useful, they still havent managed to reduce noise to acceptable levels.
It literally only works like that for that specific calculation, cant be used on decryption yet.

Just make RSA Keys 1million bits. If quantum computers can break encryption that fast, then we can also encrypt things faster

Interesting. So the final answer isn't even definite? As in there is a margin of error that means it might not even be correct?

Most likely it is correct. So, whatever.

Quantum computing is useful mostly for specific applications, it's not just a "very fast computer"

>it's not just "very fast computer"
Exactly! It's EXTREMELY fast!
It can do stuff in a matter of seconds what would a supercomputer do in years!
I bet it could run real life quality VR!

>Interesting. So the final answer isn't even definite? As in there is a margin of error that means it might not even be correct?
Yeah, it's not definite at all! It's probabilistic.
And yes there's a big margin of error, common practice is if you get the correct solution more than 2/3rds of the times you measured it, the algorithm works. (Then you run it multiple times to make the chance of the wrong answer showing up repeatedly, very small).

Same goes for noise and gate errors that occur during your calculations. Because before even arriving to your probabilistic solution, you have to correct gate errors (like bitflips in classical computers). Which is an issue, because "noise" in quantum gates is much higher than classical ones, and the class or errors much bigger.

Imagine, the worst that can happen in a classical bit is to turn from 0 to 1.
A qubit can turn from sqrt(6)/4•0 + sqrt(10)/4•1 to sqrt(10)/4•0 + sqrt(6)/4•1
or to sqrt(7)/4•0 + sqrt(9)/4•1
or to sqrt(2)/4•0 + sqrt(14)/4•1
etc etc.,
it can change continuously to any value a•0 + b•1 as long as a^2+b^2=1. So you have infinite possibilities while on classical you had one, from 0 to 1.

And what makes it also challenging is that quantum error correction is not as efficient as classical one.
Up until recently you needed 9 qubits for every qubit you wanted to protect against errors. That's a big overhead.
Now it's proved that you can do it with as little as 5, and that you need at least 5, i.e. it's optimal. Still though, it means you need 5 times the qubits of your original message/calculation, to make sure you can correct a single qubit error. That means if you algorithm used 10 qubits, you need 50 to make sure you're protected against 1-qubit errors.

Quantum is very "fragile" in general and requires a totally different mentality when designing algorithms. The set of limitations and advantages of quantum is very different to that of classical computing.

Can you build one yourself?
Look, the government has had the ability to do anything it wanted since the creation of dynamite and the airplane. There's nothing that's practical for the common man to posses, even with no legal barriers, that can counter these. You can't store high explosives in your house, they explode. You can't store an airplane in your house, it's too big, and takes up more space than almost anyone can afford.
It's not a question of if they can ban it, they can ban everything, institute chinese style social credit to keep everyone too scared to do anything ever again, it's a question of will they.

Kill yourself you thing of the past

not him but thanks for the explanation user

Shor's algorithm is probably the most useful one, and all it lets us do is factor integers quickly. This is useful, but not society changing unless QC can break asymmetric keys before everyone switches to lattice based cryptography or something else that doesn't rely on integers being hard to factor.
Otherwise, QC is far from what people think it is. Either we haven't found really cool algos, or it's just a niche technology.

Thanks for the answer. I can understand enough about that to realize how complex these things are.

Grover's algorithm isn't all it's cracked up to be, it only allows breaking AES-256 in the time it would take a classical computer to break AES-128. The solution is to simply double the key size.

still they are releasing Stadia and selling you lag

Cheers user. And yeah the more you know, the more you realise the complexity of things and how much is still unknown.
I'm just tired of the sensational hand-wavy bullshit "journalism" that further obfuscates things because every shitter needs to write something for the sweet clicks, regardless whether they're even remotely familiar with those things.

>They may be inventing GOD.
This and "playing god" are among the most retarded and worthless comments about any technology.

>what are scientific journals

when will the next revolt in society take place?

Maybe they've already had it for a while and already done what they were after...

>what are subscriptions
Do you expect them to have any penetration in the general population, even the technical part of the population, if the latter isn't an academic?

>Where is the optimal structure to make sustainable fusion?
We don't need quantum computers for that. There are lots of ideas.

>Where are the weather predictions for the next 10 years?
Don't count of that. Weather systems are chaotic systems, i.e. a small change in input parameters makes a huge change in the evolution of the system down the line.
So we're mostly limited by accuracy of measurements/sampling of the current conditions rather than the cost of calculations.

> potentially render all current cryptography useless and overturning world order by messing up banks and economies
> something useful
baka user

>>How accurate is their claim?
not very.
>They may be inventing GOD.
they took a shortcut to solve an already understood (and solved) problem. wow! nobody gives a shit, and we're still half a century or more behind expectations of what we dream of a quantum computer ever being able to achieve.

>> potentially render all current cryptography useless and overturning world order by messing up banks and economies
stop reading sci-fi novels and articles published on tech's version of "the daily mail"; the wired. it will overturn nothing.

Nothing out of the ordinary citizen. Keep using your "secure" algorithms
The important questions

>goes to run Doom
>instead opens portal to hell and dispenses shotguns en masse

The thing is they didn't. They worked with NASA on the project and some retard published it on the NASA network. It was taken down almost instantly but someone apparently got it.

nah, God is higher than that OP.

>ywn draw boxes around objects for 12 hours a day while sitting next to an asian qt
fml

“god” is such an overused cringy title nowadays used by everyone when they should just be using words like superior or advanced

This.
It's 2019. Shitty religious references like that do not belong in our secular world.

God should be reserved for things that actually deserve being called God

"I'm going to pull what they call a pro-gamer move"

This

Probably some fucked up bizarre workload. but it still doesnt open Firefox any faster than my shitposting 9900k machine

I don't know how Americans have not revolted yet when they parrot their 2nd whenever challenged. With the amount of guns that they have, they should have cancelled their corporate welfare government decades ago.

>I don't know how Americans have not revolted yet when they parrot their 2nd whenever challenged.
Americans were allowed guns, because they don't have the brainpower to use them against their masters.
It's like giving a chimpanzee your credit card, your bank account is still safe.

they used them just fine in the revolutionary war, they’ve just been turned docile with all sorts of chemicals and social programming nowadays