Those are physical qubits, not logical qubits. The blog post from Google [1] is a better (but still marketing-drenched) review. There's no research paper to rea

Those are physical qubits, not logical qubits. The blog post from Google [1] is a better (but still marketing-drenched) review. There's no research paper to read and no indication of what the precise error correction is on those 72 physical qubits. The best information we have to go on is that 1) this is a scaled up version of Google's 9-qubit quantum computer, and 2) the 9-qubit quantum computer had an error rate of 0.6%. But in the absence of any peer review or even published material, this may as well not exist. Assuming it does exist, Google is cautiously optimistic that it will be able to demonstrate quantum supremacy. But that doesn't actually mean it will be able to do anything meaningfully useful for real world applications, it just means it will breach the threshold where it's demonstrably faster than a classical computer for something (instead of theoretically). Once you leave the cleanroom it will be much less impressive. No one is close to developing a quantum computer capable of useful cryptanalysis. In fact, I'd confidently wager no one is even close to a breakthrough that would bring them close to the real breakthrough we need for quantum computers to break e.g. RSA. We'd need hundreds of thousands of physical qubits just to achieve the error correction requisite to break 2048-bit RSA. I'm weakly pessimistic I'll live to see it. _________ 1. https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/03/a-preview-of-bristlecone-googles-new.html?m=1 https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/03/a-preview-of-bristlecone-g...