Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1
    Banned Strawberry's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sweden/Yugoslavia
    Posts
    3,752

    We may achieve quantum computing before 2020

    Code:
    https://interestingengineering.com/googles-quantum-processor-may-achieve-quantum-supremacy-in-months
    Interesting read.
    Things in 2020 may become very interesting and in that case, our lives in 2030 would become drastically different from today.
    Just sad it's Google, but better than China I guess.

  2. #2
    I fear technology may be outpacing human development...at least for most of the politicians we have in office.

  3. #3
    The Insane Acidbaron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Belgium, Flanders
    Posts
    18,230
    Better hope we have equally strong encryption by that time or it is going to be rather troublesome.

  4. #4
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
    Code:
    https://interestingengineering.com/googles-quantum-processor-may-achieve-quantum-supremacy-in-months
    Interesting read.
    Things in 2020 may become very interesting and in that case, our lives in 2030 would become drastically different from today.
    Just sad it's Google, but better than China I guess.
    How drastically? Technology has changed pretty drastically the last 40 years. But my way of life on our homestead, overall has not changed much. Still use the 1959 Ford diesel tractor to mow with. Still have my 1995 Toyota truck I bought brand new. Still do not have or use a cell phone.

    Some benefits however is the internet speed is a lot faster. The AC, furnace are more efficient. A new metal roof made it easier to protect the house and it also reduces the heat in the attic, thus helping with the AC costs. I have a faster computer. The 4k tv is bigger and streaming apps is convenient. However, I can not say any of those has changed my life drastically.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
    Code:
    https://interestingengineering.com/googles-quantum-processor-may-achieve-quantum-supremacy-in-months
    Interesting read.
    Things in 2020 may become very interesting and in that case, our lives in 2030 would become drastically different from today.
    Just sad it's Google, but better than China I guess.
    Is the main probably the predictability of quantum computing? The results are not consistent? From the spinners in quantum computing?

  6. #6
    The Unstoppable Force PC2's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
    Code:
    https://interestingengineering.com/googles-quantum-processor-may-achieve-quantum-supremacy-in-months
    Interesting read.
    Things in 2020 may become very interesting and in that case, our lives in 2030 would become drastically different from today.
    Just sad it's Google, but better than China I guess.
    Maybe, but how though? A quantum computer is only as useful as the programmers ability to represent a 'problem' inside the computer.

    Less qubits to more qubits;
    1. Breaks cryptography. Wastes resources by requiring more complex quantum-safe algorithms on classical computers.
    2. Esoteric math solutions that will probably not lead to anything practical.
    3. Optimizations ie traveling salesman (getting useful)
    4. Material science / chemical permutations (Very useful)

    But even once they build up to high qubit quantum computers that can revolutionize material science, it still wont guarantee rapid progress. Because there's still the issue of how to turn a discovery into something that is mass produce-able.

    Also software researchers can't do that much work in this field ahead of time, since they would have to know what the architecture will look like, which is unpredictable.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    But my way of life on our homestead, overall has not changed much.
    I would argue that's pretty unique, to be honest. The internet alone changed how humans interact and behave. Entire industries and ways of life have sprouted around technology. The cell phone thing leads me to believe you resist technology. Which is fine. But if you actively work to keep your life the same it always has been, it should not be overly surprising that, well, your life hasn't been impacted much.

    It's akin to saying that life hasn't changed much since the 1500s, because you still wake up, go to work, get paid, eat, and sleep. The core aspect of adult life has remained fairly constant, but everything around that has changed.
    “You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit me.”
    – C.S. Lewis

  8. #8
    Banned Strawberry's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sweden/Yugoslavia
    Posts
    3,752
    The advancement towards AI will come much faster.
    Things haven't changed much in Paris since 1800s (the reason why I hate European cities) or for those living on farms, but look at some cities in China, like Shenzhen. Those cities haven't been around for very long and they are the future (as much as some here might hate it).
    We need faster computing or we won't survive past 2100.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Techno-Druid View Post
    I fear technology may be outpacing human development...at least for most of the politicians we have in office.
    That is why 18 year olds, collectively, have to vote more.

    People who are 45+ years old are deciding shit for them. They're not with the times.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Weeps View Post
    That is why 18 year olds, collectively, have to vote more.

    People who are 45+ years old are deciding shit for them. They're not with the times.
    I definitely agree, the problem is that as a demographic, they just seem too demoralized or distracted to show political support in anything but a retweet or meme in passing.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Techno-Druid View Post
    I fear technology may be outpacing human development...at least for most of the politicians we have in office.
    I don't think it's a fear, I think it's a fact, in terms of the politicians comment?

  12. #12
    What I'm interested in is what can these quantum computers can do in comparison to the computers we have now.

    I've heard that they can't decrypt stuff a lot easier, but that's about all I've come across.
    .

    "This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."

    -- Capt. Copeland

  13. #13
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,595
    Quote Originally Posted by freefolk View Post
    What I'm interested in is what can these quantum computers can do in comparison to the computers we have now.

    I've heard that they can't decrypt stuff a lot easier, but that's about all I've come across.
    It's mostly that they're just different. Some tasks quantum computers can do better and faster, other tasks they actually do much slower. For an average end-user, you'll probably stay using current computing technology because it's actually much better suited to what most people do. People talk about the decryption stuff a lot because that's one of the ways that it will impact everyone. The current RSA encryption methods that most things use won't be secure, which means that pretty much everything will have to swap over to something that a quantum computer can't break easily. Other than that, quantum computers are a godsend to people doing complex modeling, particularly when it comes to optimization problems in the physical sciences.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by alturic View Post
    I don't think it's a fear, I think it's a fact, in terms of the politicians comment?
    A large portion (and that's being generous) of Congress seems to be grossly unaware of the internet, one example being when Zuckerberg stood before Congress.
    Last edited by Techno-Druid; 2019-06-24 at 03:03 AM.

  15. #15
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by GothamCity View Post
    I would argue that's pretty unique, to be honest. The internet alone changed how humans interact and behave. Entire industries and ways of life have sprouted around technology. The cell phone thing leads me to believe you resist technology. Which is fine. But if you actively work to keep your life the same it always has been, it should not be overly surprising that, well, your life hasn't been impacted much.

    It's akin to saying that life hasn't changed much since the 1500s, because you still wake up, go to work, get paid, eat, and sleep. The core aspect of adult life has remained fairly constant, but everything around that has changed.
    Good points. I would imagine the Amish also have not felt much impact from advanced and recent technology increases. My wife has a smart phone and uses it a lot. I just have not felt any compiling reason to want one myself. Also, looks like my lack of interest in them will keep me from developing horn like bone spurs.
    https://en.newsner.com/health/study-...ke-bone-spurs/
    Last edited by Ghostpanther; 2019-06-24 at 03:23 AM.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Techno-Druid View Post
    A large portion (and that's being generous) of Congress seems to be grossly unaware of the internet, one example being when Zuckerberg stood before Congress.
    Oh absolutely. This is why there needs to be term limits. There can not be people who have no idea about technology, or visible shake, or have to pause hearing to lean back and ask their staffers what just happened.

  17. #17
    Merely a Setback Adam Jensen's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    29,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    How drastically? Technology has changed pretty drastically the last 40 years. But my way of life on our homestead, overall has not changed much. Still use the 1959 Ford diesel tractor to mow with. Still have my 1995 Toyota truck I bought brand new. Still do not have or use a cell phone.

    Some benefits however is the internet speed is a lot faster. The AC, furnace are more efficient. A new metal roof made it easier to protect the house and it also reduces the heat in the attic, thus helping with the AC costs. I have a faster computer. The 4k tv is bigger and streaming apps is convenient. However, I can not say any of those has changed my life drastically.
    If QC becomes mainstream, Diffie-Hellman is helluva broken. Why? Because Diffie-Hellman is the core of all modern encryption. There are different flavors of it, but under the hood, it's based on prime factorization of very large numbers which classical computers (which we all use) can't easily crack. QC's on the other hand can break it with Shor's Algorithm in a manageable amount of time.

    So all the encryption keeping your bank secure, your private records, your email, everything, can be broken with a QC.

    Fortunately right now QC's are very expensive, but it's going to be a problem very quickly.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by freefolk View Post
    What I'm interested in is what can these quantum computers can do in comparison to the computers we have now.

    I've heard that they can't decrypt stuff a lot easier, but that's about all I've come across.
    The exact opposite is true. They can decrypt stuff a lot easier. They're a serious threat to modern encryption.

    They are actually slower than classical computers but their power is in the ability to do things in parallel, and in that regard they're much faster. Which is why algorithms to crack RSA or other public key encryption schemes that currently take years, could be done much more quickly on a QC.
    Putin khuliyo

  18. #18
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    If QC becomes mainstream, Diffie-Hellman is helluva broken. Why? Because Diffie-Hellman is the core of all modern encryption. There are different flavors of it, but under the hood, it's based on prime factorization of very large numbers which classical computers (which we all use) can't easily crack. QC's on the other hand can break it with Shor's Algorithm in a manageable amount of time.
    1. Diffie-Hellman is the core of internet key exchange, not encryption in general.

    2. You're confusing Diffie-Hellman with RSA here. DH relies on the hardness of the discrete logarithm problem, not integer factorization (which RSA relies on). Though Shor's algorithm will break both problems completely.

    3. Symmetric key encryption, as long as it uses a sufficiently large key, is basically invulnerable to quantum computers. Grover's algorithm effectively halves their bit strength. So 128 bit encryption is as hard to break on a quantum computer as 64 bit is on a conventional computer (possible for nation states, billionaires, and large businesses), 256 bit is as hard to break as 128 bit (i.e. impossible unless there's a major problem with the algorithm), etc. In short, double up the key size and you're as untouchable as you are today.

    4. Hashing algorithms, like symmetric encryption, are weakened rather than broken by QC. They lose anywhere from half to 2/3rds of their strength, depending on the algorithm, attack, and whose math you go by. Counter is the same as with symmetric encryption, just go longer. This is presumably why SHA-3 allows arbitrary length output, so if you really want/need to, you can just use triple up your length and send QC riding a snake back down to square one.

    5. As you say, DH is completely broken by QC. But there exists an alternative that isn't. So we just require implementation of that. This won't happen overnight, but it's relatively straightforward.

    6. That leaves RSA. Like DH, it's completely and totally broken by QC. Unlike DH, no simple drop in replacement exists. There are several options, but each of them has problems (patents, uncertain security, key size problems, etc.). Barring some new development, one of them (probably the latter) will have to be chosen and the we'll just have to put up with that issue.

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  19. #19
    Hint: If a headline in science journalism says "can" or "may" it probably wont be happening.

  20. #20
    Wheee, it's time for another round of buzzword bullshit bingo.

    Biggest issue with QC will be encryption, since there are a few things you could (way) easier crack. For everyday stuff I don't see much point in using QC unless someone finds an algorithm that uses it, not to mention that most QC designs need rather exotic operationg conditions. Not sure how to interpret the title, since we have already achieved QC, we have QCs, just not on a relevant scale. After reading the article all I could garner is that they veryfied that having more qbits is better, how exactly they concluded that they just broke the IT world by that is a bit unclear and the article is kinda shitty in that. They needed to order more server resources from google's main servers, but for what exactly? Just to run a parallel test? To sift through the data they generated? What data was that, what can you do with that data?

    It's essentially a giant hype piece with a huge caveat at the end, frankly because I think the the author himself did not fully understand the topic. I'm not claiming I do, but the article certainly causes some alarmbells to go off.

    P.S. what kind of person puts a link in a sourcecode block, what the fuck is wrong with you mate?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •