Personally I find quantum computers really impressive, and they havent been given its righteous hype.
I know they won’t be something everyone has in their house but it will greatly improve some services.
I dunno if anyone except scientists and security people think about quantum computing at the moment.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
I’d say it’s still at the beginning of the curve. At the technology trigger phase. I don’t hear about it as much as I would expect
Yeah as we have seen with LLMs, unless there is practical use for the average person, nobody cares.
deleted by creator
Pretty sure QC is down at 0,0 right now. They haven’t gotten it to work in the way it’s been envisioned yet. The theory is there, but until something is quantifiably working, there’s basically no hype behind it.
I’d say very slightly past that. Quantum computers do work right now, but it’s the same way the Wright brothers’ first plane worked: as proof of concept and research, but not better than existing tech for solving any problems.
And it’s not that they fail to meet expectations of the designers, as far as I know they do exactly what they are built to do as well as predicted with the tech we have. Just the press is expecting more.
The uses/advantages of quantum computing is also such that if it does work, the 3 letter agencies will want to keep it to themselves and decrypt as much as possible before admitting it even exists.
Unfortunately for them, most of the progress is coming from the private sector (like most cutting edge tech these days) and those guys like to brag too much to let NSA come in and say “hey can we use that on the dl for about 3 years before you say anything”
Isn’t post-quantum cryptography already a thing? Probably not implemented in anything meaningful yet, but still.
Signal has it yes
There are plenty of dual-use technologies. That is, one’s that have both a private sector and military application. The big secret agencies rarely keep these things to themselves. The economic advantages of QC are too great to just sit on.
They work, but it’s expensive and POC stage. They’re mostly just not scaled to the level that we think we can take them to.
I personally think we’re on the slope of enlightenment - quantum computing no longer attracts as much hype as it used to, but in the background, there’s a lot of interesting developments that genuinely might be very important.
I’d agree, but that slope will be a long and hard one. And the hype cycle may have many more peaks and troughs of disillusionment, from new breakthroughs, but the researchers will still make steady progress.
If true then when did QC have its “ChatGPT” moment?
Quantum computers have no place in typical consumer technology, its practical applications are super high level STEM research and cryptography. Beyond being cool to conceptualize why would there be hype around quantum computers from the perspective of most average people who can barely figure out how to post on social media or send an email?
People thought the same of binary computers in their development phase.
Yeah, why would a farmer need a fancy calculator the size of a room? 🙄
Those 'taters ain’t gonna count themselves!
…and cryptography.
I think I’m a typical consumer, and if I’m not mistaken we use cryptography constantly (https and banking, off the top of my head). If quantum computers are important for cryptography, it’s hard to imagine “regular people” having no use.
Cryptography is most of the hype I’ve heard. It’s usually something along the lines of imagine all encryption/certificates being breakable instantly
That’s not the case, quantum computing can only break specific types of cryptography.
Hype ≠ Reality
Ahh yes, I misread your comment
Imagine quantum PCs get usable and we don’t update users cryptography 😂 you could as well communicate in plain text in that case
Specifically breaking prime number based cryptography.
Your use of Cryptography is probably roughly on the level of “Having a strong password.”
The application of quantum computers will largely in in BREAKING security. You’re not going to have a quantum-security module in your phone or home computer.
Not necessarily we could get better more complex security at boot with a qbit TPM chip. Every time you log into a secure boot environment you are solving a hash which is in the wheelhouse of quantum compute.
The answer for that exists as a superposition of multiple possibilities but as soon as somebody manages to read it it will decohere into just the one.
Quantum Computing is still climbing the slope from TT to the Peak of Inflated Expectations. There is still little to no major hype, as its still in “R&D/testing” it is slow, it is expensive (Very) limited due to all the surrounding tech required to make it work like cooling, containment etc…
Compare this to AI.
AI is at and heading down from the Peak towards the Trough of Disillusionment. It was easy (relatively) to implement, easy to evolve as how nVidia did, simply throw more silicon at it. The Hype was easy to generate because even while totally misinformed, media and other people out there thought they could easily sell it. Even though most of what they claimed was turd, it sounded amazing and a game changer even in the early stages, and businesses lapped it up. Now they are feeling the pain, and seeing that there are still major hurdles to get past.
considering that no one who isn’t involved in the creation of them is talking about quantum computing in regards to quarterly profits or posting about it on LinkedIn trying to score a lead, it may be as far left on the chart as possible.
The kind of LLM that caused this hype with GPT3 is in R&D since the 60’s. I belive we’re in the 70’s of Quantum Coputing. When It’ll be measured, it’d be just as easy and relatively cheep to produce and advance as AI today
QC is likely to remain the domain of liquid nitrogen-cooled machines for a long time to come, possibly forever. I can run a basic LLM on a Raspberry Pi–and I have–but it’s highly unlikely QC will ever be that easy.
AI is way different. It’s more like a series of hills where Sysiphus is pushing the boulder up to the peak, only to see another higher peak as the boulder rolls down the slope of disillusionment.
The thing is that quite a few things initially called AI have climbed that hype curve, rolled down into disillusionment, and quite a few have climbed back to a plateau of increased productivity. Each time we realize that’s either not AI or only a step toward AI. We’ve gotten a lot of useful functionality but the actual progress seems to be mainly clarifying what intelligence is or is not
Pretty much on the blue line. They cost a lot of money for being barely functional, and it’s not clear whether they’ll ever be anything more
Amazing computational speedups if you regularly use any of these incredibly specific algorithms. Otherwise useless.
Quantum as a service may exist as a business.
Uh… one of those algorithms in your list is literally for speeding up linear algebra. Do you think just because it sounds technical it’s “businessy”? All modern technology is technical, that’s what technology is. It would be like someone saying, “GPUs would be useless to regular people because all they mainly do is speed up matrix multiplication. Who cares about that except for businesses?” Many of these algorithms here offer potential speedup for linear algebra operations. That is the basis of both graphics and AI. One of those algorithms is even for machine learning in that list. There are various algorithms for potentially speeding up matrix multiplication in the linear. It’s huge for regular consumers… assuming the technology could ever progress to come to regular consumers.
literally for speeding up linear algebra
For a sparse matrix where you don’t need the values of the solution vector.
I.e. a very specific use case.
Quantum computers will be called from libraries that apply very specific subroutines for very specific problems.
Consumers may occasionally call a quantum subroutine in a cloud environment. I very much doubt we will have a quantum chip in our phone.
Yes, but, quantum TPM or TPU chips would allow for far more complex encryption. So you’d likely have a portiion of the SOC with a quantum bus or some other function.
However you’re correct that it’d take a seachange in computing for a qbit based OS
Strong, post quantum encryption doesn’t require quantum computers. It uses different mathematical objects (e.g. matrices)
True. However there is still a usecase. You could sign a cert for uefi much like a payment would. Useful for distributed compute.
Why are you isolating a single algorithm? There are tons of them that speed up various aspects of linear algebra and not just that single one, and many improvements to these algorithms since they were first introduced, there are a lot more in the literature than just in the popular consciousness.
The point is not that it will speed up every major calculation, but these are calculations that could be made use of, and there will likely even be more similar algorithms discovered if quantum computers are more commonplace. There is a whole branch of research called quantum machine learning that is centered solely around figuring out how to make use of these algorithms to provide performance benefits for machine learning algorithms.
If they would offer speed benefits, then why wouldn’t you want to have the chip that offers the speed benefits in your phone? Of course, in practical terms, we likely will not have this due to the difficulty and expense of quantum chips, and the fact they currently have to be cooled below to near zero degrees Kelvin. But your argument suggests that if somehow consumers could have access to technology in their phone that would offer performance benefits to their software that they wouldn’t want it.
That just makes no sense to me. The issue is not that quantum computers could not offer performance benefits in theory. The issue is more about whether or not the theory can be implemented in practical engineering terms, as well as a cost-to-performance ratio. The engineering would have to be good enough to both bring the price down and make the performance benefits high enough to make it worth it.
It is the same with GPUs. A GPU can only speed up certain problems, and it would thus be even more inefficient to try and force every calculation through the GPU. You have libraries that only call the GPU when it is needed for certain calculations. This ends up offering major performance benefits and if the price of the GPU is low enough and the performance benefits high enough to match what the consumers want, they will buy it. We also have separate AI chips now as well which are making their way into some phones. While there’s no reason at the current moment to believe we will see quantum technology shrunk small and cheap enough to show up in consumer phones, if hypothetically that was the case, I don’t see why consumers wouldn’t want it.
I am sure clever software developers would figure out how to make use of them if they were available like that. They likely will not be available like that any time in the near future, if ever, but assuming they are, there would probably be a lot of interesting use cases for them that have not even been thought of yet. They will likely remain something largely used by businesses but in my view it will be mostly because of practical concerns. The benefits of them won’t outweigh the cost anytime soon.
Why are you isolating a single algorithm?
To show that quantum computing only helps with very specific parts of very specific algorithms.
A QC is not a CPU, it’s not a GPU, it’s closer to a superpowered FPU.
If they would offer speed benefits, then why wouldn’t you want to have the chip that offers the speed benefits in your phone?
if somehow consumers could have access to technology in their phone that would offer performance benefits to their software that they wouldn’t want it.
Because the same functionality would be available as a cloud service (like AI now). This reduces costs and the need to carry liquid nitrogen around.
The issue is not that quantum computers could not offer performance benefits in theory.
It is this. QC only enhances some very specific tasks.
It is the same with GPUs. A GPU can only speed up certain problems. You have libraries that only call the GPU when it is needed for certain calculations.
Yes, exactly my point. QC is a less flexible GPU.
I don’t see why consumers wouldn’t want it.
Because they would need to use the specific quantum enhanced algorithms frequently enough to pay to have local, always on access.
They will likely remain something largely used by businesses but in my view it will be mostly because of practical concerns. The benefits of them won’t outweigh the cost anytime soon.
Agree. Unless some magic tech, like room temperature superconductors, turns up there will only be quantum as a service supplied for some very specific business needs.
Because the same functionality would be available as a cloud service (like AI now). This reduces costs and the need to carry liquid nitrogen around.
Okay, you are just misrepresenting my argument at this point.
Actually I think we are mostly agreeing.
The difference is that you think that the technology will quickly be made cheap and portable enough for mass consumption and I think it will remain, for quite some time, niche and expensive, like high end, precision industrial equipment.
I’m so dreadfully sorry. I cannot help myself. Please forgive me.
It’s “zero kelvins” not “zero degrees Kelvin.”
You don’t have to be sorry, that was stupid of me to write that.
Btw: What a quantum computer can reliably do these days, is tell you 21 is 3 x 7. And it takes hours and quite some traditional computing to do that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization_records#Records_for_efforts_by_quantum_computers
We’ve progressed a bit further than that. But for anyone interested in actual applications for quantum computers… They’ll have to wait. It’s research at this point. We’re making progress one step at a time. But so far no one has even demostrated we’re able to scale those computers to a useful size.
So I’d say we’re somewhere close to the origin of the axes. Or on a different graph for research that’s still science fiction. Together with nuclear fusion power plants, thorium cars, space ships and hypothetical battery chemistry that’ll make our electric cars go 5000 miles and not degrade over time.
[Edit: The Wikipedia Article: Quantum comuting also has some good references.]
What exactly is holding QC back right now? Does it require near room-temp superconductivity to become viable or is it just in research phase right now?
I remember that AI/ML was held back mainly because of compute power to price ratio.
There are a few different physical systems that people are trying to build quantum computers with. Superconducting loops are one of the most promising ones, because of a halfway decent decoherence rate. And yeah, superconducts needing near 0K temperature to operate is a problem. It’s just hard to scale up while everything needs to be so cold. Room-temp superconductivity would be a huge advantage.
But even then, the decoherence rates are still too high for any long quantum computation. Last I heard, the best qubits are maybe barely getting to good enough errors rates that quantum error correction would be possible - which is great, but ‘possible’ and ‘practical’ still have a significant gap between them.
So in short, basically everything about the hardware needs to be better; and its just very very hard. Probably too hard to ever achieve the dream of having arbitrary quantum computation. (But there is always the possibility of some big new idea that makes everything work better.)
That’s not entirely true. There are companies right now with prototypes solving real world problems.
If you have a concrete example I’d love to hear it
Sandbox AQ is one I’ve heard about. Pretty sure they are at least at the prototype stage.
That certainly counts as hype. But I wonder if there’s any independent information out there about these computers. All I can find is self-advertising and news about investors. I mean we occasionally do get these claims that someone proved quantum supremacy. But as far as I know the validity often isn’t clear or the results aren’t reproduced yet. And sadly I can’t skim the papers since lots of them aren’t open access.
And for research it doesn’t matter if you need days to cool down the computer just for one calculation. Or if most results are wrong due to noise and you have to re-do every computation on a traditional computer to check which results are correct. But I’d expect it takes them years or decades from a protopype like that to something actually useful. And as of now we haven’t even solved superconductivity or the temperatures or decoherence. So I’m always a bit careful with these claims frome the quantum startups.
And does the company you mentioned actually own a quantum computer prototype? Because it seems their focus is writing algorithms/software.
https://www.sandboxaq.com/solutions/aqnav
This is their only product on the market which has quantum in their product description. It apparently uses “quantum sensors” to provide location information. I don’t know how it works. I think they have made a hard shift in their strategy in the last 2 years by offering AI solutions instead.
Edit: From their Youtube comment
The core system of AQNav is a suite of quantum sensors that reads the crustal magnetic field of the Earth, along with proprietary AI algorithms that work to de-noise that signal and provide real-time location information. That’s a very different process, compared to inertial navigation systems
Looks like they do! I’d only heard about them in passing, but here’s an article: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/24/16/5402
That article talks about a bedside magnetometer device, used to measure the heartbeat of a person. I can’t find any reference to quantum computers 🙁
I appreciate the conversation, but it does seem like you’re dismissing everything to fit with your narrative. Quantum computing is absolutely a new and emerging field, I was just trying to showcase that it’s farther than 21 divided by 7. From wikipedia, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetocardiography, MCGs are pretty much by definition a quantum sensor. The technical aspects of the paper linked goes in to how their device is different and why it does not require cryogenic cooling.
Does these “companies” includes the one that were outed for just doing computation on plain old processors and claiming they had made huge breakthrough in quantum computing?
Not the one I was thinking about. Sandbox AQ is the one that came to mind.
We’re in the “grifters collecting donations” phase for the foreseeable future.
Either somewhere on the far left, and we’ll see some actual breakthrough with major impact in the future which actually gets hyped, or on the far right and it already happened, it was just too niche for anyone other than a specific small group to notice.
I think the big breakthrough was in cryptography, and yeah, most people don’t care. All of your passwords will be useless against brute force attacks in 10-15 years from it tho!
But we already have quantum proof passwords nowadays.
Even “quantum proof” passwords are trivially broken if quantum computers allow us to practically solve p=np.
That’s a pretty big assumption though, and even then you can just switch to a new password format that allows for passwords that aren’t solvable using mathematical means. e.g. my password is to fill in a picture on 10x10 grid using 10 different colours. There’s no mathematical basis to guess my picture and there are more posibilites than there are particles in the observable universe.
That’s perfectly solveable with math. Each grid square can take 10 colors, so there are 10^100 possibilities. That’s about 330 bits of entropy, or equivalent to a 51 character password. That’s gross overkill if the underlying cryptosystem isn’t broken, but insufficient if it is (depending on the details).
Cryptography routinely deals with much, much larger numbers than what you’re suggesting (e.g. any RSA key), and even those get broken occasionally.
It’s no more an assumption than “Our current quantum-proof passwords are secure against a type of computer that is entirely conceptual at current time.”
I think this graph doesn’t have to move left to right, it can also move right to left. On several occasions quantum computing started to move up the “tech trigger” slope, but without any functional applications for the current technology the point slid back down to the left again.
I think the graph needs at least one more demarcated region. After “tech trigger” there needs to be “real world applications”. Without real world applications you can never progress past the tech trigger phase.
In chemistry this is the equivalent of Energy of Activation. If a reaction can’t get over the big first step, then it can’t proceed on to any secondary steps
Real world applications is what comes to light at the „Slope of Enlightment“ If QC has some, the tech is at this point.
Quantum computers have already had its hype, so plateau of productivity. It’s just that the plateau is really low.
There is a difference between feasibility hype and adoption hype. The hype about it being possible at all has passed. But the true hype relevant to the graph is when it is implemented in the general economy, outside of labs and research facilities.
Yeah they’re similar to fusion. The hype perpetually goes up to the first peak and then back down to the left while they keep working on it
This is the equivalent of saying AI already had its hype because Isaac Asimov was popular.
People are aware of the term quantum computer and basically nothing else. We’re a decade pre-hype at least. Only a small handful of specialists are investing in it.
The picture only shows one hype cycle. AI has been through multiple hype cycles. Same will happen with quantum computers, once a new major breakthrough is reached.
There hasn’t been anything resembling a hype cycle for quantum computing.
Approaching the point of disillusionment.
They started to work, but hardly anyone cares. They are still far from being good, or affordable.
Trough of disillusionment
You think we’ve made it that far?
