3 ms·
It sounds like the error correction that we need for a lot of "general" purpose quantum functions requires a lot of qubits. However, it also sounds like we can
by Verdex 8y ago
It sounds like the error correction that we need for a lot of "general" purpose quantum functions requires a lot of qubits. However, it also sounds like we can build some special purpose machines using the 50-100 qubit machines that are coming online now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=BvVciA5iXH4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=BvVciA5iXH4 (Contains mention of work that Scott Aaronson did that could be usable with 50ish qubits. Specifically, generating random numbers that we can trust.)
- throwawaymath 8y agoScott Aaronson is a brilliant computer scientist, but I honestly don’t see it. There are a lot of these bizarre “applications” coming from quantum computing theorists or physicists. Generally speaking they read as a little out of touch with whatever field they’re proposing the new thing too. For example, generating random numbers with quantum computers is an interesting theoretical exercise. But it’s completely asinine in practice. The world moved on from information theoretic randomness decades ago because complexity theoretic randomness is basically fine for just about any purpose. It comes across as grasping at straws when you’re proposing using a quantum computer to generate true randomness. Sure, you could, but what a ridiculously overengineered way of getting random bits... For similar reasons, I’m incredibly skeptical of quantum cryptography. Go find someone who publishes at an IACR conference and ask them for their take on quantum key agreement protocols.