3 ms·

I was recently learning about Shors Algorithm which was kind of mind blowing until I found out it can’t actually be executed on anything right now. We’re still

I was recently learning about Shors Algorithm which was kind of mind blowing until I found out it can’t actually be executed on anything right now. We’re still in the super early days. Like where microcomputers were 40-50 years ago

ghaff 3y ago
Last I looked expert consensus on factoring RSA-2048 was about 15-20 years out but with a wide divergence of opinion. You might find a less optimistic take today,
- bawolff 3y ago
  I was under the impression the 20 year prediction was for classical methods not quantum
  - ghaff 3y ago
    I can't speak to classical methods but, yes, that was the quantum prediction in report a couple years back.
- oldgradstudent 3y ago
  An expert consensus is an interesting social phenomena that should be definitely investigated by anthropologists of science. It tells us nothing about reality.
tippytippytango 3y ago
I'd say we need to go back further, quantum is in the era of the Babbage difference engine.
- Strilanc 3y ago
  Related: "Quantum computing worst case scenario: we are Lovelace and Babbage" [1] For scale: Babbage's planned analytical engine had a word size of 50 digits, a clock rate of 7Hz, and a physical size of roughly a locomotive [2]. Contrast [3] where it's estimated that 600-digit superposed additions would run at 27Hz (by dedicating millions of qubits to magic state distillation of the underlying AND gates). Given current plans, a quantum computer capable of doing arithmetic operations as wide and as fast as the analytical engine would probably be larger than the analytical engine. We can see how to do reliable quantum computation in principle. The overhead of error correction makes it daunting in scale. It sure would be nice if someone came along and invented the quantum computing equivalent of a vacuum tube or a transistor. [1]: https://csferrie.medium.com/quantum-computing-worst-case-scenario-we-are-lovelace-and-babbage-1e3005d677e6 https://csferrie.medium.com/quantum-computing-worst-case-sce... [2]: https://medium.com/tech-is-a-tool/building-the-modern-computer-babbages-analytical-engine-8179dedb08c8 https://medium.com/tech-is-a-tool/building-the-modern-comput... [3] "How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits" https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2021-04-15-433/ https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2021-04-15-433/
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
oneshtein 3y ago
First micro-processor MP944 (1970) had 5360 transistors. (73k transistors with memory). Quantum computer with just 1123 qubits released this month. However, it doesn't work properly yet, because large systems doesn't work as quantum systems, so error rate is high. Large quantum computer is like Eniac at earthquake.
delusional 3y ago
> We’re still in the super early days. Like where microcomputers were 40-50 years ago There's a trap in that sort of thinking. It assumes that it's inevitable that we will at some point arrive at current day for quantum computers. That technology is a straight path in whatever direction we set out. I don't think that is a given. There a plenty of things out there that physics just can't do. Things that, no matter how much effort and thought and research we put into it, we just can't make the world do in a scalable affordable fashion. I don't have the knowledge to make a believable claim that quantum computers are one of those, but you have to consider that it might be. It's possible that quantum computers aren't at the stage of the 8086, but rather at the stage of the flying cars in jetsons. Doomed to forever be an unrealistic dream.
- bena 3y ago
  You're right, it is not a given. Progress only looks like a straight shot in hindsight. Yes, we can take any invention today and trace every step back to the previous to make a single unbroken chain to the invention of the wheel. But for every airplane, there's a Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT.

ghaff 3y ago

Last I looked expert consensus on factoring RSA-2048 was about 15-20 years out but with a wide divergence of opinion. You might find a less optimistic take today,

bawolff 3y ago
I was under the impression the 20 year prediction was for classical methods not quantum
- ghaff 3y ago
  I can't speak to classical methods but, yes, that was the quantum prediction in report a couple years back.
oldgradstudent 3y ago
An expert consensus is an interesting social phenomena that should be definitely investigated by anthropologists of science. It tells us nothing about reality.

tippytippytango 3y ago

I'd say we need to go back further, quantum is in the era of the Babbage difference engine.

Strilanc 3y ago
Related: "Quantum computing worst case scenario: we are Lovelace and Babbage" [1] For scale: Babbage's planned analytical engine had a word size of 50 digits, a clock rate of 7Hz, and a physical size of roughly a locomotive [2]. Contrast [3] where it's estimated that 600-digit superposed additions would run at 27Hz (by dedicating millions of qubits to magic state distillation of the underlying AND gates). Given current plans, a quantum computer capable of doing arithmetic operations as wide and as fast as the analytical engine would probably be larger than the analytical engine. We can see how to do reliable quantum computation in principle. The overhead of error correction makes it daunting in scale. It sure would be nice if someone came along and invented the quantum computing equivalent of a vacuum tube or a transistor. [1]: https://csferrie.medium.com/quantum-computing-worst-case-scenario-we-are-lovelace-and-babbage-1e3005d677e6 https://csferrie.medium.com/quantum-computing-worst-case-sce... [2]: https://medium.com/tech-is-a-tool/building-the-modern-computer-babbages-analytical-engine-8179dedb08c8 https://medium.com/tech-is-a-tool/building-the-modern-comput... [3] "How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits" https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2021-04-15-433/ https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2021-04-15-433/
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

oneshtein 3y ago

First micro-processor MP944 (1970) had 5360 transistors. (73k transistors with memory). Quantum computer with just 1123 qubits released this month. However, it doesn't work properly yet, because large systems doesn't work as quantum systems, so error rate is high. Large quantum computer is like Eniac at earthquake.

delusional 3y ago

> We’re still in the super early days. Like where microcomputers were 40-50 years ago There's a trap in that sort of thinking. It assumes that it's inevitable that we will at some point arrive at current day for quantum computers. That technology is a straight path in whatever direction we set out. I don't think that is a given. There a plenty of things out there that physics just can't do. Things that, no matter how much effort and thought and research we put into it, we just can't make the world do in a scalable affordable fashion. I don't have the knowledge to make a believable claim that quantum computers are one of those, but you have to consider that it might be. It's possible that quantum computers aren't at the stage of the 8086, but rather at the stage of the flying cars in jetsons. Doomed to forever be an unrealistic dream.

bena 3y ago
You're right, it is not a given. Progress only looks like a straight shot in hindsight. Yes, we can take any invention today and trace every step back to the previous to make a single unbroken chain to the invention of the wheel. But for every airplane, there's a Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT.