3 ms·
I think the author was just poking fun at the idea that the 15 and 21 factoring results can be used to indicate some sort of progress. I think the graph makes t
by upofadown 2y ago
I think the author was just poking fun at the idea that the 15 and 21 factoring results can be used to indicate some sort of progress. I think the graph makes that obvious.
Last I heard we were 1-2 orders of magnitude away from a physical qubit error rate low enough for error correction to have a chance of creating a threat against cryptography. So things sound pretty unlikely at the moment. We need a fundamental breakthrough.
- dullcrisp 2y agoIs 1–2 orders of magnitude a lot or a little here? With exponential progress that could be a few years; with stalled progress that’s maybe never.
- adgjlsfhk1 2y agoEven if that's a few years, that's the progress until we get 1 (useful) qbit. We're then another 3 orders of magnitude from being able to factor a number that can't be factored on a classical computer. I don't think it's impossible, but I do think it's very much in the ~2 decades away stage.
- charlieyu1 2y agoNot into the field, but how far are we from factoring 35?
- adgjlsfhk1 2y agoNot an expert, but IIUC current quantum computers probably could "factor" numbers in the ~10k range (but doing so wouldn't be that interesting since they could only do so without the error correction that will be incredibly necessary to making Shor's algorithm work in practice)
- charlieyu1 2y agoMaybe Shor’s algorithm is just a dead end.