←back to thread

429 points AbhishekParmar | 6 comments | | HN request time: 0.42s | source | bottom
Show context
Imnimo ◴[] No.45670761[source]
As with any quantum computing news, I will wait for Scott Aaronson to tell me what to think about this.
replies(6): >>45670868 #>>45670978 #>>45671067 #>>45671079 #>>45671833 #>>45672034 #
lisper ◴[] No.45670978[source]
Why wait? Just go read the paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09526-6

In the last sentence of the abstract you will find:

"These results ... indicate a viable path to practical quantum advantage."

And in the conclusions:

"Although the random circuits used in the dynamic learning demonstration remain a toy model for Hamiltonians that are of practical relevance, the scheme is readily applicable to real physical systems."

So the press release is a little over-hyped. But this is real progress nonetheless (assuming the results actually hold up).

[UPDATE] It should be noted that this is still a very long way away from cracking RSA. That requires quantum error correction, which this work doesn't address at all. This work is in a completely different regime of quantum computing, looking for practical applications that use a quantum computer to simulate a physical quantum system faster than a classical computer can. The hardware improvements that produced progress in this area might be applicable to QEC some day, this is not direct progress towards implementing Shor's algorithm at all. So your crypto is still safe for the time being.

replies(4): >>45671003 #>>45671037 #>>45671611 #>>45671618 #
1. AndrewStephens ◴[] No.45671611[source]
> "These results ... indicate a viable path to practical quantum advantage"

I'll add this to my list of useful phrases.

Q: Hey AndrewStephens, you promised that task would be completed two days ago. Can you finish it today?

A: Results indicate a viable path to success.

replies(3): >>45671746 #>>45672051 #>>45673003 #
2. iwontberude ◴[] No.45671746[source]
Charlie Brown, Lucy, football
3. keeda ◴[] No.45672051[source]
An MBA, an engineer and a quantum computing physicist check into a hotel. Middle of the night, a small fire starts up on their floor.

The MBA wakes up, sees the fire, sees a fire extinguisher in the corner of the room, empties the fire extinguisher to put out the fire, then goes back to sleep.

The engineer wakes up, sees the fire, sees the fire extinguisher, estimates the extent of the fire, determines the exact amount of foam required to put it out including a reasonable tolerance, and dispenses exactly that amount to put out the fire, and then satisified that there is enough left in case of another fire, goes back to sleep.

The quantum computing physicist wakes up, sees the fire, observes the fire extinguisher, determines that there is a viable path to practical fire extinguishment, and goes back to sleep.

replies(1): >>45674494 #
4. adonovan ◴[] No.45673003[source]
Not quite sure why all the responses here are so cynical. I mean, it's a genuinely difficult set of problems, so of course the first steps will be small. Today's computers are the result of 80 astonishing years of sustained innovation by millions of brilliant people.

Even as a Googler I can find plenty of reasons to be cynical about Google (many involving AI), but the quantum computing research lab is not one of them. It's actual scientific research, funded (I assume) mostly out of advertising dollars, and it's not building something socially problematic. So why all the grief?

replies(1): >>45674692 #
5. foota ◴[] No.45674494[source]
Meanwhile Schrodinger's cat sleeps peacefully in their carrier.
6. AndrewStephens ◴[] No.45674692[source]
I completed my degree in computer science at age 22 - at that time Shor had just published his famous algorithm and the industry press was filled with articles on how quantum computing was just a few years away with just a few technical hurdles yet to be solved.

I turned 50 years old this year, forgive an old man a few chuckles.