5 ms·

If quantum computing would progress just like in the last 30 years it may take 300 years before it can be useful. https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/1237.pdf https:/

If quantum computing would progress just like in the last 30 years it may take 300 years before it can be useful. https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/1237.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/1237.pdf

lbourdages 1y ago
Thanks for sharing this, great read.
wat10000 1y ago
If you know a better way to factor 35, I’d like to hear it.
3eb7988a1663 1y ago
As has been previously pointed out, the 2001 and 2012 quantum factorisation records may be easily matched with a dog trained to bark three times [33]. We verified this by taking a recently-calibrated reference dog, Scribble, depicted in Figure 6, and having him bark three times, thus simultaneously factorising both 15 and 21. This process wasn’t as simple as it first appeared because Scribble is very well behaved and almost never barks. Having him perform the quantum factorisation required having his owner play with him with a ball in order to encourage him to bark. It was a special performance just for this publication, because he understands the importance of evidence-based science. I look forward to more dog-based science.
- geoffpado 1y ago
  > we also estimate that factorising at least two-digit numbers should be within most dogs’ capabilities, assuming the neighbours don’t start complaining first
- mimasama 1y ago
  This deserves an Ig Nobel Prize lol.
  - teruakohatu 1y ago
    Ig Nobel’s go to actual research, not to satire.
- einsteinx2 1y ago
  > Similarly, we refer to an abacus as “an abacus” rather than a digital computer, despite the fact that it relies on digital manipulation to effect its computations. I loved this quote as well
mosura 1y ago
If anyone had made meaningful progress on QC in that time there is no way knowledge of it would be allowed to be public. It is one of those domains where success would land you in a gilded prison.
- mapmeld 1y ago
  Like LLMs, this isn't the sort of thing where a small group would make a sudden advancement and be made secret, and I doubt that the NSA can make theirs significantly faster than any industry team today. I think more likely you would need to get worried if someone got one scalable to hundreds or thousands of logical qubits and then stopped publishing.
  - mosura 1y ago
    > I think more likely you would need to get worried if someone got one scalable to hundreds or thousands of logical qubits and then stopped publishing. Consider the likelihood of managing that without alerting the authorities to what is going on.
bossyTeacher 1y ago
If we know anything, it's that development is never linear

If quantum computing would progress just like in the last 30 years it may take 300 years before it can be useful. https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/1237.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2025/1237.pdf

lbourdages 1y ago

Thanks for sharing this, great read.

wat10000 1y ago

If you know a better way to factor 35, I’d like to hear it.

3eb7988a1663 1y ago

As has been previously pointed out, the 2001 and 2012 quantum factorisation records may be easily matched with a dog trained to bark three times [33]. We verified this by taking a recently-calibrated reference dog, Scribble, depicted in Figure 6, and having him bark three times, thus simultaneously factorising both 15 and 21. This process wasn’t as simple as it first appeared because Scribble is very well behaved and almost never barks. Having him perform the quantum factorisation required having his owner play with him with a ball in order to encourage him to bark. It was a special performance just for this publication, because he understands the importance of evidence-based science. I look forward to more dog-based science.

geoffpado 1y ago
> we also estimate that factorising at least two-digit numbers should be within most dogs’ capabilities, assuming the neighbours don’t start complaining first
mimasama 1y ago
This deserves an Ig Nobel Prize lol.
- teruakohatu 1y ago
  Ig Nobel’s go to actual research, not to satire.
einsteinx2 1y ago
> Similarly, we refer to an abacus as “an abacus” rather than a digital computer, despite the fact that it relies on digital manipulation to effect its computations. I loved this quote as well

mosura 1y ago

If anyone had made meaningful progress on QC in that time there is no way knowledge of it would be allowed to be public. It is one of those domains where success would land you in a gilded prison.

mapmeld 1y ago
Like LLMs, this isn't the sort of thing where a small group would make a sudden advancement and be made secret, and I doubt that the NSA can make theirs significantly faster than any industry team today. I think more likely you would need to get worried if someone got one scalable to hundreds or thousands of logical qubits and then stopped publishing.
- mosura 1y ago
  > I think more likely you would need to get worried if someone got one scalable to hundreds or thousands of logical qubits and then stopped publishing. Consider the likelihood of managing that without alerting the authorities to what is going on.

bossyTeacher 1y ago

If we know anything, it's that development is never linear