5 ms·

What amazes me is how big tech wants to be in on this bandwagon. There is fomo, and each company announces its own chip that does something - and nobody knows w

What amazes me is how big tech wants to be in on this bandwagon. There is fomo, and each company announces its own chip that does something - and nobody knows what. The risk of inaction is bigger than the risk of failure. Meanwhile, a networking company wants to "network" these chips - what does that even mean ? And a gpu company produces a library for computing with quantum. Smoke-and-mirrors can carry on for a long time, and fool the best of them. Isaac Newton was in on the alchemist bandwagon.

mepian 1y ago
It is really desperation, the low-hanging fruit of computing paradigm shifts to fuel the "tech" industry's growth was completely plucked more than a decade ago.
cjbgkagh 1y ago
AFAIK, in the case of Microsoft, it's less FOMO and more about execs being able to impress their peers at other companies. So not really a fear of missing out but a desire to have an exclusive access to a technology that has already been socialized and widely understood to be impressive. It's a simple message, 'that impressive thing you've been reading about, we're the ones building that'.
- jhallenworld 1y ago
  Also: the big company "thought leaders" need something new to talk about every year at conferences like "Microsoft Ignite" or whatever. These people will push funding into things like quantum research just for this. I'm sure they're getting lots of mileage out of LLMs these days... I'm maybe a little jaded having worked on whole products that had no market success, but were in fact just so that the company had something new to talk about.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
shalg 1y ago
There are exactly 2 reasons we might want quantum networks. 1. 100% secure communication channels (even better we can detect any attempt at eavesdropping and whatever information is captured will be useless to the eavesdropper) 2. Building larger quantum computers. A high fidelity quantum network would allow you to compute simultaneously with multiple quantum chips by interfacing them. The thing that makes quantum networking different from regular networking is that you have to be very careful to not disturb the state of the photons you are sending down the fiber optics. Im currently doing my PhD building quantum networking devices so im a bit biased but I think it’s pretty cool :). Now does it matter I’m not sure. Reason 1 isn’t really that useful because encryption is very secure. However if quantum computers start to scale up and some encryption methods get obsoleted this could be nice. Also having encryption that is provably secure would be nice regardless. Reason 2 at the moment seems like the only path to building large scale quantum computing. Think a datacenter with many networked quantum chips.
- nativeit 1y ago
  I feel like most of your answer was just re-stating the question. I’m happy to admit that’s almost certainly a mix of my ignorance on the topic at hand, and I have been primed to view the discussions surrounding quantum computing with suspicion, but either way, that’s the way it reads to this layperson.
- chatmasta 1y ago
  If studio execs have their way, Quantum DRM will be the killer use case…
  - autoexec 1y ago
    Jokes on them, we'll just end up creating and using quantum pirating systems or even the dreaded Quantum Analog Hole to evade it.
- nativeit 1y ago
  > 100% secure communication channels (even better we can detect any attempt at eavesdropping and whatever information is captured will be useless to the eavesdropper) chips. A few follow up questions: 1. What is it about quantum computers that can guarantee 100% secure communication channels? 2. If the communications are 100% secure, why are we worried about eavesdropping? 3. If it can detect eavesdropping, why do we need to concern ourselves with the information they might see/hear? Just respond to the detection. 4. What is it about quantum computing that would make an eavesdroppers’ overheard information useless to them, without also obviating said information to the intended recipients? This is where the language used to discuss this topic turns into word salad for me. None of the things you said necessarily follow from the things that were said before them, but rather just levied as accepted fact.
sharpshadow 1y ago
It’s not only big tech. Since months I’m reading about joint venture types between companies of European countries with state sponsoring in QC. When you follow the path there are a bundle of fresh created companies in every country each claiming a branch like quantum communication, quantum encryption, quantum this.. all working together and cooperating with the same companies in other EU countries. Still trying to figure out what is going on. Are they preposition for the upcoming breakthroughs and until then it will be like the beginning in AI where many claimed to have it but actually just pretended. Additionally they likely want to access the money flow.
no_wizard 1y ago
>Isaac Newton was in on the alchemist bandwagon An often overlooked or unmentioned fact too! I think its a shame, because it humanizes the (for lack of a better term) smartest people in history to know these things about them. Yes, Newton invented calculus, but he also tried to turn lead into gold! So you too, might be able to do something novel, is the idea.
- BlueTemplar 1y ago
  Let's not forget that the cutting edge of modern science included alchemy at that time : one of the purposes for which the first thermostat was invented was to control alchemical fires. Or how the "perpetual motion machine" (by the same guy, Cornelis Drebbel) led to barometers and the discovery of atmospheric pressure. (Also connected to astrology because astrologers were the ones making predictions, including of weather.) EDIT : bonus soundtrack : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy99ywCp3qU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy99ywCp3qU (> it is only a small subset of this song, a fully differentiable song will come in the future)
- rowanG077 1y ago
  I think it's kinda disingenuous to look at people of the past like that. I expect the exact same curiosity for the unknown and intelligence that allowed Isaac Newton to crack calculus was also the driver for him entering alchemy. The only difference looking back is that one was correct and the other wasn't. Something that no one knew for sure at the time. It's like looking back to the stone age and laughing at the cave men "look how stupid they were why don't they just do X".

mepian 1y ago

It is really desperation, the low-hanging fruit of computing paradigm shifts to fuel the "tech" industry's growth was completely plucked more than a decade ago.

cjbgkagh 1y ago

AFAIK, in the case of Microsoft, it's less FOMO and more about execs being able to impress their peers at other companies. So not really a fear of missing out but a desire to have an exclusive access to a technology that has already been socialized and widely understood to be impressive. It's a simple message, 'that impressive thing you've been reading about, we're the ones building that'.

jhallenworld 1y ago
Also: the big company "thought leaders" need something new to talk about every year at conferences like "Microsoft Ignite" or whatever. These people will push funding into things like quantum research just for this. I'm sure they're getting lots of mileage out of LLMs these days... I'm maybe a little jaded having worked on whole products that had no market success, but were in fact just so that the company had something new to talk about.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

shalg 1y ago

There are exactly 2 reasons we might want quantum networks. 1. 100% secure communication channels (even better we can detect any attempt at eavesdropping and whatever information is captured will be useless to the eavesdropper) 2. Building larger quantum computers. A high fidelity quantum network would allow you to compute simultaneously with multiple quantum chips by interfacing them. The thing that makes quantum networking different from regular networking is that you have to be very careful to not disturb the state of the photons you are sending down the fiber optics. Im currently doing my PhD building quantum networking devices so im a bit biased but I think it’s pretty cool :). Now does it matter I’m not sure. Reason 1 isn’t really that useful because encryption is very secure. However if quantum computers start to scale up and some encryption methods get obsoleted this could be nice. Also having encryption that is provably secure would be nice regardless. Reason 2 at the moment seems like the only path to building large scale quantum computing. Think a datacenter with many networked quantum chips.

nativeit 1y ago
I feel like most of your answer was just re-stating the question. I’m happy to admit that’s almost certainly a mix of my ignorance on the topic at hand, and I have been primed to view the discussions surrounding quantum computing with suspicion, but either way, that’s the way it reads to this layperson.
chatmasta 1y ago
If studio execs have their way, Quantum DRM will be the killer use case…
- autoexec 1y ago
  Jokes on them, we'll just end up creating and using quantum pirating systems or even the dreaded Quantum Analog Hole to evade it.
nativeit 1y ago
> 100% secure communication channels (even better we can detect any attempt at eavesdropping and whatever information is captured will be useless to the eavesdropper) chips. A few follow up questions: 1. What is it about quantum computers that can guarantee 100% secure communication channels? 2. If the communications are 100% secure, why are we worried about eavesdropping? 3. If it can detect eavesdropping, why do we need to concern ourselves with the information they might see/hear? Just respond to the detection. 4. What is it about quantum computing that would make an eavesdroppers’ overheard information useless to them, without also obviating said information to the intended recipients? This is where the language used to discuss this topic turns into word salad for me. None of the things you said necessarily follow from the things that were said before them, but rather just levied as accepted fact.

sharpshadow 1y ago

It’s not only big tech. Since months I’m reading about joint venture types between companies of European countries with state sponsoring in QC. When you follow the path there are a bundle of fresh created companies in every country each claiming a branch like quantum communication, quantum encryption, quantum this.. all working together and cooperating with the same companies in other EU countries. Still trying to figure out what is going on. Are they preposition for the upcoming breakthroughs and until then it will be like the beginning in AI where many claimed to have it but actually just pretended. Additionally they likely want to access the money flow.

no_wizard 1y ago

>Isaac Newton was in on the alchemist bandwagon An often overlooked or unmentioned fact too! I think its a shame, because it humanizes the (for lack of a better term) smartest people in history to know these things about them. Yes, Newton invented calculus, but he also tried to turn lead into gold! So you too, might be able to do something novel, is the idea.

BlueTemplar 1y ago
Let's not forget that the cutting edge of modern science included alchemy at that time : one of the purposes for which the first thermostat was invented was to control alchemical fires. Or how the "perpetual motion machine" (by the same guy, Cornelis Drebbel) led to barometers and the discovery of atmospheric pressure. (Also connected to astrology because astrologers were the ones making predictions, including of weather.) EDIT : bonus soundtrack : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy99ywCp3qU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy99ywCp3qU (> it is only a small subset of this song, a fully differentiable song will come in the future)
rowanG077 1y ago
I think it's kinda disingenuous to look at people of the past like that. I expect the exact same curiosity for the unknown and intelligence that allowed Isaac Newton to crack calculus was also the driver for him entering alchemy. The only difference looking back is that one was correct and the other wasn't. Something that no one knew for sure at the time. It's like looking back to the stone age and laughing at the cave men "look how stupid they were why don't they just do X".