this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
418 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

59135 readers
2825 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kakes@sh.itjust.works 89 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Wait, seriously? That's quite a jump from the last one I heard about.

Also: it's actually 1,121 qubits, even more impressive.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 87 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Doom port pls, it's the law.

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 70 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

It can play doom and not play doom and be in various stages in between.

[–] lemming741@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

You don't know if you're playing DOOM or WOOD until you look

[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 13 points 11 months ago

So statistically, on average, it just about plays Doom

[–] Luisp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Plays 0.01% of doom and the rest is noise

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Smokeless7048@lemmy.world 62 points 11 months ago (13 children)

This really is amazing to see. It feels like just year when we were discussing 1, 2, or 10 qubits.

Are there any/many current uses for these quantum computers?

[–] 800XL@lemmy.world 34 points 11 months ago (1 children)

breaking encryption algorithms

[–] Smokeless7048@lemmy.world 27 points 11 months ago (1 children)

From what i heard, even 1,000 qubits isn't close to enough for modern passwords: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00017-0

[–] Rin@lemm.ee 25 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Paywall. Also, passwords and RSA are two different things.

[–] aBundleOfFerrets@sh.itjust.works 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Reversing hashing algos is what people mean when they talk about quantum computers cracking passwords / encryption, though.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rishabh@discuss.tchncs.de 31 points 11 months ago (16 children)

For now they are only being used for research purposes. For example, simulating Quantum effects in many atom physics and implementing error correction for future quantum computers. Any real applications still need some time but the pace of development is really quite something.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Wasn't there a study that, with the current approach of evaluating an average to break it down to a few finite states, they might never be able to do for what they were developed; cracking passwords?

[–] frezik@midwest.social 22 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If by "cracking passwords" you mean reversing password hashes in a database, quantum computers aren't going to make a big dent there. The standard industry ways of doing that wouldn't be affected much by QCs. Breaking encryption, OTOH, with QCs is a concern, but also vastly overrated. It would take orders of magnitude more qubits to pull off than what's been worked on so far, and it may not be feasible to juggle that many qubits in a state of superposition.

I get really annoyed when people focus on breaking encryption with QCs. They are far more interesting and useful than that.

QC can make logistics more efficient. Have you ever seen photos of someone unpacking a giant Amazon box holding one little micro SD card? Amazon isn't dumb about these things, but our best methods of packing an entire truck is a guess. Packing algorithms would take too long to calculate how to perfectly pack it, so they come up with a solution that seems OK, and that leads to a few "filler" boxes that are unnecessarily large, among other inefficiencies. QC can solve this problem without taking the age of the universe to come up with a solution.

The order in which that truck delivers those packages can also be made more efficient with QC.

Then there's molecular simulations, which have the promise of making medications that are more effective, more likely to pass trials, and with fewer side effects. This can be done far faster on a QC.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 58 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Damn. I never even finished Q-Bert 1. That game is hard! Are the sequels any better?

[–] TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 24 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If you're on NES, turn the controller 45 degrees to the right. You're welcome.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Wasn’t the controller on the arcade a goddamn roll ball? Ugg

[–] balancedchaos@lemmy.world 27 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I see you're also in the Ibuprofen demographic.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

That hit home, hurts. Take it back.

[–] ahto@feddit.de 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

What's the Ibuprofen demographic? Is Ibuprofen no longer used in the US? It's the go to painkiller here in Germany.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think it means he’s old enough to take ibuprofen everyday because everything hurts when he wakes up. I too am this many years old.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] balancedchaos@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

I was saying that since we're getting older, things ache now. We need ibuprofen to decrease the pains.

[–] nullPointer@programming.dev 20 points 11 months ago (2 children)
[–] Mbourgon@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

Yes, but your 1650 is still the bottleneck

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SharkAttak@kbin.social 16 points 11 months ago (10 children)

"Now we hope to understand in better detail how these works and what to do with them"

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 20 points 11 months ago

It's worth noting that the laser was much the same way. It was described early on as a solution in search of a problem, and lasers have had an incredible impact on technology.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So, web encryption broken when? Now?

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

It takes about a billion qbits to break 2048bit encryption, so a while. I saw something about reducing it to about 20 million qbits recently, but it's still a while off.

[–] Overzeetop@sopuli.xyz 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

More importantly, how long until I can guarantee a 51% chance of solving every bitcoin block?

[–] cyd@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Hash functions are not known to be quantum vulnerable (i.e., there's no known quantum algorithm that provides an exponential speedup, best you can do is to use Grover's algorithm to slightly speed up the brute force search). So maybe never.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 11 points 11 months ago

Great, so when operating systems have finally reached relative stability, the future holds crashes coming from the chipset.

[–] xia@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

1000? Wasn't that the threshold for breaking RSA crypto, or something?

[–] Speculater@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think it's closer to 20,000,000 and that is out the Noise Intermediate Scale Quantum computing, meaning modern chips would need to double or quadruple the number of qubits for error detection and error correction in order to run even basic algorithms. That's not to mention that they'd need to be super cooled for up to eight hours and stay in a super position without decoherence into their ground states before performing the Shor's Algorithm.

TL;DR: We need an improvement over 20000x and better tech to break RSA, but this is a good step forward!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm

[–] WHYAREWEALLCAPS@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So, basically, we're still in the ENIAC stage of quantum computers. They're cool and all, can do some awesome stuff, but are no where near the potential they could be.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tungah@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How much is that in intel/AMD gigafloppers?

[–] Speculater@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

It's actually impossible to do a direct comparison of flops to what I guess we'd call quflops, as the algorithms are not directly comparable. Quantum computers are good at quantum algorithms that can do operations in a single time step that a classical computer couldn't, likewise, to simulate a classical computer on a quantum computer would be very resource intensive.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

You gotta coax the qubits, man.

load more comments (2 replies)

telegram gotta speed up

load more comments
view more: next ›