4 ms·

I don't think its just skeptics. Afaik most researchers (other than those who are trying to attract investments) have been very clear that we are still a ways o

I don't think its just skeptics. Afaik most researchers (other than those who are trying to attract investments) have been very clear that we are still a ways off from practical quantum computing, and even then the applications of QC is limited to specific domains.

reikonomusha 3y ago
I agree with this. Unimaginable hype was mostly from those with an obvious incentive to raise money, to put themselves on a shortlist for a Nobel, and all that. Most of the ground-floor researchers and experimentalists have been extraordinarily realistic, though sometimes passive or quiet since there's an incentive to not bite the hand that feeds them. It also doesn't help that the giant PR machines of IBM, Google, IonQ, et al. have been commanding the narrative. At this point you'd think transmons, ions, and atoms are the only commercially/at-scale interesting options. :)
- refulgentis 3y ago
  > Unimaginable hype was mostly from those with an obvious incentive to raise money, to put themselves on a shortlist for a Nobel, and all that Like who? I think we're making up a person.
  - reikonomusha 3y ago
    For instance, Peter Chapman, among many others. Some of the hype is generated in a quasi-faceless fashion, such as the disaster of a Nature [1] paper by Google, and the surrounding PR claiming they constructed a wormhole with a quantum computer. Or how about Leo Kouwenhoven [2], supported by Microsoft's quantum group, and the retracted Nature papers after their hand was forced? Witness any number of talks at past Q2B conferences to see the audacious claims in applications (healthcare, logistics, ...), chip improvements, etc. [1] "Nature" is a prestigious journal that is a prime target for quantum groups to publish in and consequently milk for PR. [2] https://www.wired.com/story/microsoft-retracts-disputed-quantum-computing-paper/ https://www.wired.com/story/microsoft-retracts-disputed-quan...
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      Two attempts: [1] anonymous. Link? [2] "Unimaginable hype was mostly from those with an obvious incentive to raise money, to put themselves on a shortlist for a Nobel" is not evidenced by "It claimed to have found evidence of Majorana particles, long-theorized but never conclusively detected...repeating the experiment revealed a miscalibration error that skewed the original ...“We apologize to the community for insufficient scientific rigor in our original manuscript,”
      - reikonomusha 3y ago
        The Majorana particle stuff has a long history where the paper was retracted not due to a simple scientific error, but alleged intentional misrepresentation or negligence. - "Data manipulation and omission in 'Quantized Majorana conductance', Zhang et al, Nature 2018" https://zenodo.org/records/4587841 https://zenodo.org/records/4587841 The wormhole stuff has plenty of references in its inappropriate handling. These are accessible to a broad audience: - https://www.quantamagazine.org/wormhole-experiment-called-into-question-20230323/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/wormhole-experiment-called-in... - https://youtu.be/czjisEGe5Cw https://youtu.be/czjisEGe5Cw
        refulgentis 3y ago
        TL;DR: Still unclear what either example has to do with the claims. [1] Majorana particle A. Zenodo link: the authors use 'manipulating' to mean 'presentation of data', you are using it to mean 'made up data to unimaginably hype [the idea] quantum computing [applications will be ready in the short term] in order to get short-listed for a Nobel'. B. The only thing tying this to QC is anything you've said is the idea MS would be excited by the paper. That's it. Nothing else tying it to QC or QC applications or hype. C. If they purposefully manipulated the experiment to falsify data, they must be some of the stupidest people on earth, you don't get a Nobel without reproduction. Are you sure they did? No one else seems to be claiming any of that. [2] Google wormhole A. Source: "Last fall, a team of physicists announced that they had teleported a qubit through a holographic wormhole in a quantum computer. Now another group suggests that’s not quite what happened." B. Claim: 'made up data to unimaginably hype [the idea] quantum computing [applications will be ready in the short term] in order to get short-listed for a Nobel' C. QED: claim unrelated to source [3] Follow up question from me Are you comfortable making up people, claims about them and their actions, without sourcing? If so, I find that interesting, because you seem very, very, very, dedicated to the idea that researchers who ever make a mistake are doing it intentionally for attention and rewards. That's not how research works. We applaud retractions.
- AlmostSchurLie 3y ago
  > At this point you'd think transmons, ions, and atoms are the only commercially/at-scale interesting options. What other options are there?
echelon 3y ago
> the applications of QC is limited to specific domains. Breaking crypto alone would make it worth its weight in gold.
- shwouchk 3y ago
  Do you forsee any sort of positive impact from destroying the ability to transact online?
  - echelon 3y ago
    If it's shown to be fundamentally unsound, then we shouldn't be doing it. Society will adapt, as it always does. For some time, I'm sure state actors will derive incredible utility from limited access to the tools.
    - shwouchk 3y ago
      Let’s apply that same argument to global thermonuclear war.
      - echelon 3y ago
        Without a global government or geopolitically stable world, there's no way to unwind it. All countries have different resources and needs and views, so nobody will disarm. Only MAD. I'd like to double down on my previous statement: if cryptography becomes impossible due to some fundamental property of the universe, then there's nothing to be done. We're where we are today because of a fluke, and that's it. Once the dam bursts, it's over. Maybe that happens, maybe that doesn't. Maybe there's something else we can base our secrets on.
        shwouchk 3y ago
        Not sure I follow your point re global government, so I’ll return to your double down. If there’s a fundamental property of the universe that disallows public cryptography then it’s a fact of life. What baffles me is someone’s desire to reach that state sooner rather later, given how much current global civilization depends on it. In the same vein, global warming is a fact of life since in a few million years the sun will engulf the earth. Yet I’ve yet to hear a sentiment describing it as a desirable state of affairs, because “the free energy alone would be worth its weight in gold”.

reikonomusha 3y ago

I agree with this. Unimaginable hype was mostly from those with an obvious incentive to raise money, to put themselves on a shortlist for a Nobel, and all that. Most of the ground-floor researchers and experimentalists have been extraordinarily realistic, though sometimes passive or quiet since there's an incentive to not bite the hand that feeds them. It also doesn't help that the giant PR machines of IBM, Google, IonQ, et al. have been commanding the narrative. At this point you'd think transmons, ions, and atoms are the only commercially/at-scale interesting options. :)

refulgentis 3y ago
> Unimaginable hype was mostly from those with an obvious incentive to raise money, to put themselves on a shortlist for a Nobel, and all that Like who? I think we're making up a person.
- reikonomusha 3y ago
  For instance, Peter Chapman, among many others. Some of the hype is generated in a quasi-faceless fashion, such as the disaster of a Nature [1] paper by Google, and the surrounding PR claiming they constructed a wormhole with a quantum computer. Or how about Leo Kouwenhoven [2], supported by Microsoft's quantum group, and the retracted Nature papers after their hand was forced? Witness any number of talks at past Q2B conferences to see the audacious claims in applications (healthcare, logistics, ...), chip improvements, etc. [1] "Nature" is a prestigious journal that is a prime target for quantum groups to publish in and consequently milk for PR. [2] https://www.wired.com/story/microsoft-retracts-disputed-quantum-computing-paper/ https://www.wired.com/story/microsoft-retracts-disputed-quan...
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    Two attempts: [1] anonymous. Link? [2] "Unimaginable hype was mostly from those with an obvious incentive to raise money, to put themselves on a shortlist for a Nobel" is not evidenced by "It claimed to have found evidence of Majorana particles, long-theorized but never conclusively detected...repeating the experiment revealed a miscalibration error that skewed the original ...“We apologize to the community for insufficient scientific rigor in our original manuscript,”
    - reikonomusha 3y ago
      The Majorana particle stuff has a long history where the paper was retracted not due to a simple scientific error, but alleged intentional misrepresentation or negligence. - "Data manipulation and omission in 'Quantized Majorana conductance', Zhang et al, Nature 2018" https://zenodo.org/records/4587841 https://zenodo.org/records/4587841 The wormhole stuff has plenty of references in its inappropriate handling. These are accessible to a broad audience: - https://www.quantamagazine.org/wormhole-experiment-called-into-question-20230323/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/wormhole-experiment-called-in... - https://youtu.be/czjisEGe5Cw https://youtu.be/czjisEGe5Cw
      - refulgentis 3y ago
        TL;DR: Still unclear what either example has to do with the claims. [1] Majorana particle A. Zenodo link: the authors use 'manipulating' to mean 'presentation of data', you are using it to mean 'made up data to unimaginably hype [the idea] quantum computing [applications will be ready in the short term] in order to get short-listed for a Nobel'. B. The only thing tying this to QC is anything you've said is the idea MS would be excited by the paper. That's it. Nothing else tying it to QC or QC applications or hype. C. If they purposefully manipulated the experiment to falsify data, they must be some of the stupidest people on earth, you don't get a Nobel without reproduction. Are you sure they did? No one else seems to be claiming any of that. [2] Google wormhole A. Source: "Last fall, a team of physicists announced that they had teleported a qubit through a holographic wormhole in a quantum computer. Now another group suggests that’s not quite what happened." B. Claim: 'made up data to unimaginably hype [the idea] quantum computing [applications will be ready in the short term] in order to get short-listed for a Nobel' C. QED: claim unrelated to source [3] Follow up question from me Are you comfortable making up people, claims about them and their actions, without sourcing? If so, I find that interesting, because you seem very, very, very, dedicated to the idea that researchers who ever make a mistake are doing it intentionally for attention and rewards. That's not how research works. We applaud retractions.
AlmostSchurLie 3y ago
> At this point you'd think transmons, ions, and atoms are the only commercially/at-scale interesting options. What other options are there?

echelon 3y ago

> the applications of QC is limited to specific domains. Breaking crypto alone would make it worth its weight in gold.

shwouchk 3y ago
Do you forsee any sort of positive impact from destroying the ability to transact online?
- echelon 3y ago
  If it's shown to be fundamentally unsound, then we shouldn't be doing it. Society will adapt, as it always does. For some time, I'm sure state actors will derive incredible utility from limited access to the tools.
  - shwouchk 3y ago
    Let’s apply that same argument to global thermonuclear war.
    - echelon 3y ago
      Without a global government or geopolitically stable world, there's no way to unwind it. All countries have different resources and needs and views, so nobody will disarm. Only MAD. I'd like to double down on my previous statement: if cryptography becomes impossible due to some fundamental property of the universe, then there's nothing to be done. We're where we are today because of a fluke, and that's it. Once the dam bursts, it's over. Maybe that happens, maybe that doesn't. Maybe there's something else we can base our secrets on.
      - shwouchk 3y ago
        Not sure I follow your point re global government, so I’ll return to your double down. If there’s a fundamental property of the universe that disallows public cryptography then it’s a fact of life. What baffles me is someone’s desire to reach that state sooner rather later, given how much current global civilization depends on it. In the same vein, global warming is a fact of life since in a few million years the sun will engulf the earth. Yet I’ve yet to hear a sentiment describing it as a desirable state of affairs, because “the free energy alone would be worth its weight in gold”.