5 ms·

The real story isn't the $2B. It's that the foundry is standalone, so other quantum hardware companies can use it. Shared infrastructure beats nine separate res

The real story isn't the $2B. It's that the foundry is standalone, so other quantum hardware companies can use it. Shared infrastructure beats nine separate research cleanrooms.

Zigurd 4mo ago
Is there enough agreement regarding what is a quantum chip, and what process technology is necessary to make one?
- imglorp 4mo ago
  Is there any agreement regarding real applications that warrant fab volume or is this still speculation?
  - bawolff 4mo ago
    There is high agreement on what the real applications of Quantum computing are. Unfortunately these projects are basically useless when it comes to them.
    - icegreentea2 4mo ago
      Can you clarify? Do you mean that superconducting qubits are unable to perform the "real applications" theoretically, or that superconducting qubits at the scale this foundry could produce will be unable, or that superconducting qubits that will foundry could produce will still be outperformed by classical techniques?
      - bawolff 4mo ago
        I mean, we are no where near the scale [qubit count] & quality where the applications apply. Not just this foundry but in general. I suppose the point is to eventually get there, but we are not close yet. You should still view anything Quantum as early R&D.
        ghaff 4mo ago
        I don't have the same level of cynicism with quantum that I had with enterprise blockchain. (Hey, I spent a number of years getting sucked into things that didn't pan out along with some that did in a big way.) I pretty much agree with respect to quantum. Practical value is probably further away than a number of folks were betting on at one point though I still believe it's there.
        deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
        rbanffy 4mo ago
        > You should still view anything Quantum as early R&D. The good thing is that someone who can make lots of chips can reduce the effort it takes to do R&D. With more people researching possible applications, it's likely we'll progress more quickly.
    - NooneAtAll3 4mo ago
      > There is high agreement on what the real applications of Quantum computing are. and what are those applications?
      - skissane 4mo ago
        The most obvious one is SIGINT agencies breaking RSA, DSA, ECDSA, ECDH, etc. Of course, the plan is by the time quantum computers become capable of breaking those algorithms in practice, the industry will have moved to post-quantum cryptography algorithms. But there will still be legacy systems which haven't, and also encrypted data recorded in the past in the expectation they'd be able to decrypt it in the future.
        ghaff 4mo ago
        There seem to be fixes available for crypto. The issue is getting people to implement those fixes. Which, of course, is the issue with getting people to implement a lot of security fixes more broadly.
      - bawolff 4mo ago
        - better simultion of quantum systems (this is the actual important one despite nobody seeming to care) - breaking a lot of traditional public key crypto (this gets a lot of attention, but its not that big a deal because there are alternatives) - in theory i guess quadratic improvement on unstructured search. I think its unlikely to be practically relavent.
        eff-nix 4mo ago
        [dead]
      - alphager 4mo ago
        Logistics would love to optimize the traveling salesman problem.
        malux85 4mo ago
- ghaff 4mo ago
  I've been out of the space for a bit. IBM has been betting on the engineered superconducting approach, which makes sense given their background, but there are other options, often for potentially different problem areas. Need to dive back in.
  - ktallett 4mo ago
    The superconducting approach is great in principle but has so many issues that need to be solved, from cooling, to energy to cool, to max number of qubits before you can't cool to operating temperature, before optimal connectivity to rest of system and so on. I am of the view photonics is the way forward but as you say, it will depend on the task at hand partially.
    - ghaff 4mo ago
      I won't argue with that. There's photonics, there's trapped ion. Need to dive back in.
- rbanffy 4mo ago
  I guess it's a balance. If you think their process makes workable chips for your designs, then you can use it. If you can't adapt your design to what they can build, then you need to build your own foundry. Chances are a reliable supplier will push the market in the direction of their process. If we had someone making GaAs processors in the 1980s for a price competitive with their silicon counterparts and with a long-term roadmap, we'd have very different computers now. And some extra toxic waste problems.
- gaze 4mo ago
  For superconducting qubits, yes. For other architectures everyone is doing their own thing.

The real story isn't the $2B. It's that the foundry is standalone, so other quantum hardware companies can use it. Shared infrastructure beats nine separate research cleanrooms.

Zigurd 4mo ago

Is there enough agreement regarding what is a quantum chip, and what process technology is necessary to make one?

imglorp 4mo ago
Is there any agreement regarding real applications that warrant fab volume or is this still speculation?
- bawolff 4mo ago
  There is high agreement on what the real applications of Quantum computing are. Unfortunately these projects are basically useless when it comes to them.
  - icegreentea2 4mo ago
    Can you clarify? Do you mean that superconducting qubits are unable to perform the "real applications" theoretically, or that superconducting qubits at the scale this foundry could produce will be unable, or that superconducting qubits that will foundry could produce will still be outperformed by classical techniques?
    - bawolff 4mo ago
      I mean, we are no where near the scale [qubit count] & quality where the applications apply. Not just this foundry but in general. I suppose the point is to eventually get there, but we are not close yet. You should still view anything Quantum as early R&D.
      - ghaff 4mo ago
        I don't have the same level of cynicism with quantum that I had with enterprise blockchain. (Hey, I spent a number of years getting sucked into things that didn't pan out along with some that did in a big way.) I pretty much agree with respect to quantum. Practical value is probably further away than a number of folks were betting on at one point though I still believe it's there.
        deleted 4mo ago
        [deleted]
      - rbanffy 4mo ago
        > You should still view anything Quantum as early R&D. The good thing is that someone who can make lots of chips can reduce the effort it takes to do R&D. With more people researching possible applications, it's likely we'll progress more quickly.
  - NooneAtAll3 4mo ago
    > There is high agreement on what the real applications of Quantum computing are. and what are those applications?
    - skissane 4mo ago
      The most obvious one is SIGINT agencies breaking RSA, DSA, ECDSA, ECDH, etc. Of course, the plan is by the time quantum computers become capable of breaking those algorithms in practice, the industry will have moved to post-quantum cryptography algorithms. But there will still be legacy systems which haven't, and also encrypted data recorded in the past in the expectation they'd be able to decrypt it in the future.
      - ghaff 4mo ago
        There seem to be fixes available for crypto. The issue is getting people to implement those fixes. Which, of course, is the issue with getting people to implement a lot of security fixes more broadly.
    - bawolff 4mo ago
      - better simultion of quantum systems (this is the actual important one despite nobody seeming to care) - breaking a lot of traditional public key crypto (this gets a lot of attention, but its not that big a deal because there are alternatives) - in theory i guess quadratic improvement on unstructured search. I think its unlikely to be practically relavent.
      - eff-nix 4mo ago
        [dead]
    - alphager 4mo ago
      Logistics would love to optimize the traveling salesman problem.
      - malux85 4mo ago
ghaff 4mo ago
I've been out of the space for a bit. IBM has been betting on the engineered superconducting approach, which makes sense given their background, but there are other options, often for potentially different problem areas. Need to dive back in.
- ktallett 4mo ago
  The superconducting approach is great in principle but has so many issues that need to be solved, from cooling, to energy to cool, to max number of qubits before you can't cool to operating temperature, before optimal connectivity to rest of system and so on. I am of the view photonics is the way forward but as you say, it will depend on the task at hand partially.
  - ghaff 4mo ago
    I won't argue with that. There's photonics, there's trapped ion. Need to dive back in.
rbanffy 4mo ago
I guess it's a balance. If you think their process makes workable chips for your designs, then you can use it. If you can't adapt your design to what they can build, then you need to build your own foundry. Chances are a reliable supplier will push the market in the direction of their process. If we had someone making GaAs processors in the 1980s for a price competitive with their silicon counterparts and with a long-term roadmap, we'd have very different computers now. And some extra toxic waste problems.
gaze 4mo ago
For superconducting qubits, yes. For other architectures everyone is doing their own thing.