4 ms·

Except that factorization is exactly what is needed to break encryption, and so knowing what QC can do in that realm of mathematics and computing is exactly the

by jgeada 1y ago

Except that factorization is exactly what is needed to break encryption, and so knowing what QC can do in that realm of mathematics and computing is exactly the critical question that needs to be asked. And a reminder that in the world of non-QC computing, right from its very roots, the ability of computers improved in mind boggling large steps every year. QC records, other than the odd statistic about how many bits they can make, have largely not made any strides in being able to solve real world sized problems (with exception of those that use QCs purely as an analog computer to model QC behavior)

tomgag 1y ago
I beg you to read the full story and to not extrapolate from the quote. Also, in the world of QC, right from its very roots, the ability of QC improved in mind boggling large steps every year. It's only that you cannot see it if you only look at the wrong metric, i.e., factorization records. It's a bit like saying "classical computing technology has not improved for 50 years, it's only recently that we finally start to have programs that are able to write other programs".
- madars 1y ago
  A great resource for visually seeing progress is https://sam-jaques.appspot.com/quantum_landscape https://sam-jaques.appspot.com/quantum_landscape (click "Prev"/"Next" to see other years) - it makes very clear that incredible progress is happening - this is a log-log plot.
- jgeada 1y ago
  There is a reason QC factorization records haven't shifted much over the past years. Number of qubits by themselves isn't enough. You to be able to do computation on them and for long enough to run Shor's algorithm till it produces a solution. How the qubits are connected, how reliable the logic gates are and how long you can maintain the quantum coherence with enough fidelity to get results is equally important. That no significant factorization milestones have moved is a huge critical black eye to this field. Even worse, that no one has ever even been able to truly run Schors algorithm on even trivial numbers is a shocking indictment of the whole field.
  - tomgag 1y ago
    The reasons you listed are exactly why the lack of factorization records should not be seen as a "critical black eye to this field", because they are not a relevant measure of progress. Again, think of the parallel with LLMs: it took decades to get out of the "AI winter", because that's what non-linear technological progress looks like. With QC, the risk (and I am not saying this is going to happen, but I'm saying that it is a non-overlookable risk) is that we end up transitioning from "QC can only factorize 15" to "RSA-2048 is broken" in such a sudden way that the industry has no time to adapt.
    - theuirvhhjj588 1y ago
      You keep saying it's not a relevant figure, but that is absurd. Factorisation is one of the few problems that we know are in BQP \ P. You could make the argument that we're not at a stage where running Shor's alg. on integers is feasible hence integers don't capture the progress in the field... but that's perhaps too much honestly for a field that is riding on a bubble.
      - wasabi991011 1y ago
        > You could make the argument that we're not at a stage where running Shor's alg. on integers is feasible hence integers don't capture the progress in the field... That's exactly what they are saying, and I'll say it too. Maybe they weren't explicit enough, but reread their comments as "not a relevant figure [to measure current progress].
  - mlyle 1y ago
    I think the main thing is: quantum computing doesn't really work right now, at all. Imagine if you had crummy, unreliable transistors. You couldn't build any computing machine out of them. Indeed, in the real world progress looked like: * Useless devices (1947) * Very limited devices (hearing aids) * Hand-selected, lab devices with a few hundred transistors, computing things as stunts (1955) * The IBM 1401-- practical transitorized computers (1959)-- because devices got reliable enough and ancillary technologies like packaging improved. In other words, there was a pattern of many years of seemingly negligible progress and then a sudden step once the foundational component reached a critical point. I think that's the point of the person you're talking to about this. And then just a couple of years later we had the reliability to move to integrated circuits for logic. If you looked at the "transistorized factorization record" it would be static for several years, before making a couple steps of several orders of magnitude each.

by jgeada 1y ago

tomgag 1y ago

I beg you to read the full story and to not extrapolate from the quote. Also, in the world of QC, right from its very roots, the ability of QC improved in mind boggling large steps every year. It's only that you cannot see it if you only look at the wrong metric, i.e., factorization records. It's a bit like saying "classical computing technology has not improved for 50 years, it's only recently that we finally start to have programs that are able to write other programs".

madars 1y ago
A great resource for visually seeing progress is https://sam-jaques.appspot.com/quantum_landscape https://sam-jaques.appspot.com/quantum_landscape (click "Prev"/"Next" to see other years) - it makes very clear that incredible progress is happening - this is a log-log plot.
jgeada 1y ago
There is a reason QC factorization records haven't shifted much over the past years. Number of qubits by themselves isn't enough. You to be able to do computation on them and for long enough to run Shor's algorithm till it produces a solution. How the qubits are connected, how reliable the logic gates are and how long you can maintain the quantum coherence with enough fidelity to get results is equally important. That no significant factorization milestones have moved is a huge critical black eye to this field. Even worse, that no one has ever even been able to truly run Schors algorithm on even trivial numbers is a shocking indictment of the whole field.
- tomgag 1y ago
  The reasons you listed are exactly why the lack of factorization records should not be seen as a "critical black eye to this field", because they are not a relevant measure of progress. Again, think of the parallel with LLMs: it took decades to get out of the "AI winter", because that's what non-linear technological progress looks like. With QC, the risk (and I am not saying this is going to happen, but I'm saying that it is a non-overlookable risk) is that we end up transitioning from "QC can only factorize 15" to "RSA-2048 is broken" in such a sudden way that the industry has no time to adapt.
  - theuirvhhjj588 1y ago
    You keep saying it's not a relevant figure, but that is absurd. Factorisation is one of the few problems that we know are in BQP \ P. You could make the argument that we're not at a stage where running Shor's alg. on integers is feasible hence integers don't capture the progress in the field... but that's perhaps too much honestly for a field that is riding on a bubble.
    - wasabi991011 1y ago
      > You could make the argument that we're not at a stage where running Shor's alg. on integers is feasible hence integers don't capture the progress in the field... That's exactly what they are saying, and I'll say it too. Maybe they weren't explicit enough, but reread their comments as "not a relevant figure [to measure current progress].
- mlyle 1y ago
  I think the main thing is: quantum computing doesn't really work right now, at all. Imagine if you had crummy, unreliable transistors. You couldn't build any computing machine out of them. Indeed, in the real world progress looked like: * Useless devices (1947) * Very limited devices (hearing aids) * Hand-selected, lab devices with a few hundred transistors, computing things as stunts (1955) * The IBM 1401-- practical transitorized computers (1959)-- because devices got reliable enough and ancillary technologies like packaging improved. In other words, there was a pattern of many years of seemingly negligible progress and then a sudden step once the foundational component reached a critical point. I think that's the point of the person you're talking to about this. And then just a couple of years later we had the reliability to move to integrated circuits for logic. If you looked at the "transistorized factorization record" it would be static for several years, before making a couple steps of several orders of magnitude each.