this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
430 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

66465 readers
4471 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 other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] portifornia@lemmy.world 8 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Slammed πŸ’₯ πŸ¦Ήβ€β™‚οΈ

πŸ™„

[–] trumboner@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Of course its going to be unreliable after you slam it!

What do you expect from the company which promised that windows 10 would be the last one? xD

[–] Routhinator@startrek.website 8 points 10 hours ago

Maybe they were smoking too much Majorana.

Are we SLAMming quantum computers now?

What's next Theranus doesn't actually make thousand dollar tests for a dollar?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 48 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Check it, yo. In the 90s all the articles and rumors around quantum computing were exactly the same. Exactly.

Whenever I hear about some new quantum computing breakthrough, I spend about five seconds wondering if it's real and then I feel very nostalgic because no, it never is.

[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Quantum computer do exist. And have existed for some time now. Breakthroughs have been achieved several times.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, sure and it’s interesting stuff. But not anywhere near useful in the sense people mean when they talk about computers.

They are as useful as the Large Hadron Collider, or the New Horizons probe.

They are instruments of practical scientific research. They may have some return in useful technology or not, but science is always worth it.

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 10 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Except quantum computers do indeed exist right now, and did not in the 90's. Sadly, the hype and corporate interests still make it difficult to tell truth from nonsense.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Yeah, sure they exist. Much like the ENIAC. And it’s cool stuff to work with. It’s just not anywhere close to practical. And it never has been.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I just assume it's in a superposition of both being real and not real at the same time.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Well played.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] cabbage@piefed.social 90 points 1 day ago (3 children)

This is a piece of alleged technology that is based on basic physics that has not been established.

That does sound like a problem.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 55 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I love these slides about how quantum cryptography attacks are a made up scenario https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/bollocks.pdf

Dude is a comedic genius

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Prime factorisation is indeed nobody's primary idea of what a quantum computer will be useful for in practice any time soon, but it cannot be denied that Shor's algorithm is the first and only method of prime factorisation we have discovered which can finish in realistic time with realistic resources.

And that means that RSA is no longer as safe as it once was, justifying the process of finding alternatives.

[–] sepi@piefed.social 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I'm sorry - did you read the slides?

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Indeed I did. They seem to be pointing to the fact that current machines are not factoring primes in any serious way.

Does this contradict my point?

[–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] AynRandLibertarian@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Oh you're just loving this aren't you? πŸ˜‚

[–] lka1988@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 12 hours ago

How could you tell??

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

We should find out next week at APS Global if it's really a problem or a case of Physicist Sergey Frolov, the author of that quote, failing to understand what's been done.

Microsoft could be full of shit about Majorana 1 of course but it would be damned odd for them to make a claim like this without being able to back it up; the fallout would be horrendous.

[–] Gerudo@lemm.ee 12 points 1 day ago

I have to agree with this. Say what you will about MS, but it'd be odd to claim something this crazy that they can't at least sorta backup.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AceTKen@lemmy.ca 56 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Yeah, most quantum science at the moment is largely fraudulent. It's not just Microsoft. It's being developed because it's being taught in business schools as the next big thing, not because anybody has any way to use it.

Any of the "quantum computers" you see in the news are nothing more than press releases about corporate emulators functioning how they think it might work if it did work, but it's far too slow to be used for anything.

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 9 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Quantum science is not fraudulent, incredible leaps are being made with the immense influx of funding.

Quantum industry is a different beast entirely, with scientific rigour being corrupted by stock price management.

It's an objective fact that quantum computers indeed exist now, but only at a very basic prototype level. Don't trust anything a journalist says about them, but they are real, and they are based on technology we had no idea if would ever be possible.

[–] AceTKen@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Well, I love being wrong! Are you able to show a documented quantum experiment that was carried out on a quantum computer (and not an emulator using a traditional architecture)?

How about a use case that isn't simply for breaking encryption, benchmarking, or something deeply theoretical that they have no way to know how to actually program for or use in the real world?

I'm not requesting these proofs to be snarky, but simply because I've never seen anything else beyond what I listed.

When I see all the large corporations mentioning the processing power of these things, they're simply mentioning how many times they can get an emulated tied bit to flip, and then claiming grandiose things for investors. That's pretty much it. To me, that's fraudulent (or borderline) corporate BS.

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Hell yes! I'd love to share some stuff.

One good example of a quantum computer is the Lukin group neutral atoms work. As the paper discusses, they managed to perform error correction procedures making 48 actual logical qubits and performing operations on them. Still not all that practically useful, but it exists, and is extremely impressive from a physics experiment viewpoint.

There are also plenty of meaningful reports on non-emulated machines from the corporate world. From the big players examples include the Willow chip from Google and Heron from IBM being actual real quantum devices doing actual (albeit basic) operations. Furthermore there are a plethora of smaller companies like OQC and Pasqal with real machines.

On applications, this review is both extensive and sober, outlining the known applications with speedups, costs and drawbacks. Among the most exciting are Fermi-Hubbard model dynamics (condensed matter stuff), which is predicted to have exponential speedup with relatively few resources. These all depend on a relatively narrow selection of tricks, though. Among interesting efforts to fundamentally expand what tricks are available is this work from the Babbush group.

Let me know if that's not what you were looking for.

[–] Rooskie91@discuss.online 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So glad we dereguled the market so everything is a crypto scam now.

[–] Misterboyfriend@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

πŸŒŽπŸ§‘β€πŸš€πŸ”«

[–] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

I just saw on Linked In that in 12 months "quantum AI" is going to be where it's at. Uh.... really? Do I hear "crypto-quantum AI?"

[–] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 hours ago

That sounds like something they say your washing detergent has to clean stains better.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

QUANTUM AI? IN my blockchain? It's more likely than you think!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I used a hybrid of near-shore telepresence and on-site scrum sessions to move fast and put the quantum metaverse on a content-addressable de-fi AI blockchain

[–] tonywu@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Fascinating. Where do I sign up?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

a breakthrough type of material which can observe and control Majorana particles to produce more reliable and scalable qubits

To.... produce a more random random numbers generator?

[–] erin@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 23 minutes ago

If true, this would in fact be a huge step toward quantum computing at scale, which would revolutionize computing. However, they've claimed this before, and have offered no evidence yet of their supposed discovery.

[–] anubis119@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Slammed or lightly pounded?

[–] LinyosT@sopuli.xyz 3 points 20 hours ago

S L A M M E D

Just like I S L A M M E D my penis in the car door.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

COME ON AND SLAM

AND WELCOME TO THE JAM

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί