4 ms·

Aaronson know his stuff but I am not sure he hasn’t considered the fact that, in this current hype cycle, the quantum researchers breathlessly reporting to him

Aaronson know his stuff but I am not sure he hasn’t considered the fact that, in this current hype cycle, the quantum researchers breathlessly reporting to him on a breakthrough just around the corner are just lying to him and themselves. I have been hearing about one more technical hurdle to solve before quantum algorithms become feasible since before I graduated. That was in 1996.

chii 5mo ago
quantum computers will flourish the same day that fusion does.
bradley13 5mo ago
This is true, practical quantum computing is always "just a couple of years away". At the same time, moving to more secure encryption really isn't difficult. How many times have algorithms been deprecated over the past 20 or so years? It's time to do it again. Let's just make sure that the NSA hasn't worked in any backdoors. At latest since Snowdon, anything they work on is suspect.
- AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
  And in the process immediately convert huge numbers of devices into ewaste. Then check the excuse calendar again for tomorrow's reason to deprecate yet another batch of "legacy" ciphers from openSSL.
  - FartyMcFarter 5mo ago
    The sooner we start making devices ready for better encryption systems, the fewer devices will be wasted.
    - AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
      No, because there always are "better encryption systems", whether for good reasons or not that's another story.
      - FartyMcFarter 5mo ago
        It's not another story, the quality of the reasons for scrapping / upgrading devices is the most important thing here. If the reasons are "the current devices are insecure or likely to become insecure" that's very different from "the new encryption system is a little bit better so there's not much point in upgrading". If quantum computing never becomes a practical thing, the current hardware and software will stay secure. If it becomes practical, they won't. Seems simple enough.
- Tyyps 5mo ago
  There is no clear evidence that the risk of "a practical post quantum computer would arrive in the next 5 years" is greater than "post quantum scheme X is broken" for any scheme X. The only way to go is hybridation and it is quite hard from an engineering point apparently.
  - tardedmeme 5mo ago
    There is evidence of the opposite: graph singular isogeny mumbo jumbo algorithm was proven to be easily broken on an ordinary computer. Hybrid encryption is as simple as running one encryption and then the other. Problem is mostly that post quantum keys are large.
    - i_think_so 5mo ago
      Am I missing something fundamental here? If Algo-A and Algo-B both rely on "factoring big numbers is hard!" then once the Quantumpocalypse occurs, breaking Algo-B(Algo-A(plaintext)) is no harder than asking ChatGPT 99.5 to add an extra step in your vibe coded cracking engine's frontend, such that it now does B_breaker < cyphertext | A_breaker >> plaintext.lol or whatever the equivalent is for the fashionable language of the that future day.
      - tardedmeme 5mo ago
        You have to break both algorithms. One of them is quantum-safe if it's secure, but it could also be completely insecure like supersingular isogeny was.
      - voxic11 5mo ago
        He was saying hybrid encryption as in use both a well established classical "factoring big numbers is hard!" algo and also a fancy new post quantum cryptography algo. That way if it turns out the fancy new algo can be broken by non-quantum computers at least you aren't in a worse position than you were in before because you are still protected by the well established classical algo.
- ipython 5mo ago
  I hard disagree with your assertion that moving to more secure encryption isn't difficult. It is insanely difficult, especially at global scale.
- bwesterb 5mo ago
  It'll be a 90/10 rule: 90% of the upgrades will be straightforward. It's important the 10% that'll be hard early. For many it's probably already too late.
sharkjacobs 5mo ago
Are you saying this because it's an evergreen joke or because you really think there hasn't been meaningful progress in the field since 1996? Duke Nukem Forever was release fifteen years ago. Some things never happen until they suddenly do. The wolf really does eat the boy at the end of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
- emil-lp 5mo ago
  But Duke Nukem was developed with visible progress. We are still not factoring 21, let alone 35, let alone numbers with thousands of digits.
  - red75prime 5mo ago
    Quantum correction algorithms (that would allow factoring of thousands of digits) begin to work when the gate fidelity and other parameters are above certain threshold.
    - AndrewStephens 5mo ago
      > gate fidelity and other parameters are above certain threshold A threshold that might be beyond what the physical properties of our universe allow. It is still unclear.
      - red75prime 5mo ago
        This possibility means discovery of new physics that has no indications of existence yet.
      - antonvs 5mo ago
        This is what bugs me about both quantum computers and commercial fusion power. There's so much talk about how it's just inevitable and will happen soonish, but a lot of the evidence suggests, in some cases strongly, that it might not ever be possible. I find it weird how bleeding edge research, at the very edges of both physics and engineering, is treated as though it's a market development about to drop. Possibly a consequence of pure R&D having all but died? Getting funded requires pretending there's a business plan for what you're working on?

chii 5mo ago

quantum computers will flourish the same day that fusion does.

bradley13 5mo ago

This is true, practical quantum computing is always "just a couple of years away". At the same time, moving to more secure encryption really isn't difficult. How many times have algorithms been deprecated over the past 20 or so years? It's time to do it again. Let's just make sure that the NSA hasn't worked in any backdoors. At latest since Snowdon, anything they work on is suspect.

AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
And in the process immediately convert huge numbers of devices into ewaste. Then check the excuse calendar again for tomorrow's reason to deprecate yet another batch of "legacy" ciphers from openSSL.
- FartyMcFarter 5mo ago
  The sooner we start making devices ready for better encryption systems, the fewer devices will be wasted.
  - AshamedCaptain 5mo ago
    No, because there always are "better encryption systems", whether for good reasons or not that's another story.
    - FartyMcFarter 5mo ago
      It's not another story, the quality of the reasons for scrapping / upgrading devices is the most important thing here. If the reasons are "the current devices are insecure or likely to become insecure" that's very different from "the new encryption system is a little bit better so there's not much point in upgrading". If quantum computing never becomes a practical thing, the current hardware and software will stay secure. If it becomes practical, they won't. Seems simple enough.
Tyyps 5mo ago
There is no clear evidence that the risk of "a practical post quantum computer would arrive in the next 5 years" is greater than "post quantum scheme X is broken" for any scheme X. The only way to go is hybridation and it is quite hard from an engineering point apparently.
- tardedmeme 5mo ago
  There is evidence of the opposite: graph singular isogeny mumbo jumbo algorithm was proven to be easily broken on an ordinary computer. Hybrid encryption is as simple as running one encryption and then the other. Problem is mostly that post quantum keys are large.
  - i_think_so 5mo ago
    Am I missing something fundamental here? If Algo-A and Algo-B both rely on "factoring big numbers is hard!" then once the Quantumpocalypse occurs, breaking Algo-B(Algo-A(plaintext)) is no harder than asking ChatGPT 99.5 to add an extra step in your vibe coded cracking engine's frontend, such that it now does B_breaker < cyphertext | A_breaker >> plaintext.lol or whatever the equivalent is for the fashionable language of the that future day.
    - tardedmeme 5mo ago
      You have to break both algorithms. One of them is quantum-safe if it's secure, but it could also be completely insecure like supersingular isogeny was.
    - voxic11 5mo ago
      He was saying hybrid encryption as in use both a well established classical "factoring big numbers is hard!" algo and also a fancy new post quantum cryptography algo. That way if it turns out the fancy new algo can be broken by non-quantum computers at least you aren't in a worse position than you were in before because you are still protected by the well established classical algo.
ipython 5mo ago
I hard disagree with your assertion that moving to more secure encryption isn't difficult. It is insanely difficult, especially at global scale.
bwesterb 5mo ago
It'll be a 90/10 rule: 90% of the upgrades will be straightforward. It's important the 10% that'll be hard early. For many it's probably already too late.

sharkjacobs 5mo ago

Are you saying this because it's an evergreen joke or because you really think there hasn't been meaningful progress in the field since 1996? Duke Nukem Forever was release fifteen years ago. Some things never happen until they suddenly do. The wolf really does eat the boy at the end of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

emil-lp 5mo ago
But Duke Nukem was developed with visible progress. We are still not factoring 21, let alone 35, let alone numbers with thousands of digits.
- red75prime 5mo ago
  Quantum correction algorithms (that would allow factoring of thousands of digits) begin to work when the gate fidelity and other parameters are above certain threshold.
  - AndrewStephens 5mo ago
    > gate fidelity and other parameters are above certain threshold A threshold that might be beyond what the physical properties of our universe allow. It is still unclear.
    - red75prime 5mo ago
      This possibility means discovery of new physics that has no indications of existence yet.
    - antonvs 5mo ago
      This is what bugs me about both quantum computers and commercial fusion power. There's so much talk about how it's just inevitable and will happen soonish, but a lot of the evidence suggests, in some cases strongly, that it might not ever be possible. I find it weird how bleeding edge research, at the very edges of both physics and engineering, is treated as though it's a market development about to drop. Possibly a consequence of pure R&D having all but died? Getting funded requires pretending there's a business plan for what you're working on?