It's already done just like AI, but not available for the peasant. Why would it be? We are stuck in the 2000s with mind control through "social apps" and other things. Now the real science which is growing exponentially and changing rapidly that the peasant universities can't even fathom is available just to some.
We have had "computers using "quantum" physics since the 1950's, it's just most wankers get off on the total lack of understanding they have and physics , computing and "quantum effects" the big problem is that if you don't specify the problem EXACTLY & it has a single solution, then the quantum result returned is ALL the answers Xored together this is what they call the "error rate", so basically you dont know if the answer you get back is a single solution you want or a totally useless multiple answer. so then you need a traditional computer to check the result.
In 2019 they said their Quantum Computer did a calculation that would take a normal computer 10,000 years to do. Then a short time later someone did the same calculation in the same amount of time that it took the Quantum Computer to do it. And if you read the new paper from Google they are expecting something similar this time too
I heard a cybersecurity guy say: "quantum computer will eventually destroy rsa but all that would do is force people to switch to an algorithm that is hard to run for quantum computers" and it made me less stressed about the issue
you shouldnt be stressed about it anyway. Smart people will solve any issues caused by it, which will trickle down to us less smart people. its a non-issue.
@@chuck600 this is true, and some companies have already switched to future proof algorithms, but the issue is that current communications using outdated algorithms can still be saved by bad actors and then pushed through a quantum computer year in the future. So anything we send across the Internet right now could potentially be saved and stored somewhere until there's enough computing power to break it open
Where are you going after you die? What happens next? Have you ever thought about that? Repent today and give your life to Jesus Christ to obtain eternal salvation. Tomorrow may be too late my brethen😢. Hebrews 9:27 says "And as it is appointed unto man once to die, but after that the judgement
@@JesusPlsSaveMe Thanks no thanks. Your God, should he be real, would be nothing but a blackmailing narcissist forcing you to either serve him or suffer. I'd rather return to dust than live with him.
Step 1: Make useless technology. Step 2: Come up with way to make insane weapon with previously useless technology. Step 3: Once everyone else has said weapon, maybe release to the public so they can come up with useful/helpful things to do with the technology.
PhD student here in Quantum Error Correction: couple of notes on your video: 1: it’s important to note that “parallel” operations on a quantum computer require a significant amount of measurements on the computer to extract useful information. This means that you can’t just run all possibilities at once and magically get the answer even with leveraging entanglement. It’s actually been shown that a fully parallel classical computer is more computationally powerful than a quantum computer. 2: Not all quantum computers require ultra cold operating temperatures. Because and Google and IBM have large marketing budgets, people think that superconducting quantum computers are the ones leading the pack. But they are actually the noisiest qubits out there. You can use atoms, photons, or other quantum objects to run things a much higher temps like 1K or even room temperature for NV center qubits. 3: The algorithm that supposedly takes 10^25 years to run on a classical computer, is pretty much the quantum computer simulating itself. Not super impressive. People have beaten google and IBM’s previous claims at this on a laptop, and this one will probably go the same way. 4: The biggest breakthrough is demonstrating that error correction is sound in principle, but their implementation is still the most inefficient way of doing things.
thank you for this, too few people understand this and take the headlines at face value, it’s great to have it broken down concisely by someone with your expertise
Disguise a delusion religious sect as "SoYenCe" and people will actually start to believe this kind of crap. Quantum whatever is pure "trust me bro" nonsense made up by idiots who believe they can intellectualize their way into eternity. There is no quantum computer and there never will be, because it is complete and utter bullshit. Please refer to the halting problem for confirmation.
aka "every NP-intermediate problem that is reducible to prime factorization", which is a fuckton of problems with very real and very practical applications
Literature is filled with problems that can be solved with QM these days. Yes, it will never replace a classical CPU because it cannot solve all problems more efficiently. But it can solve enough that it will always have practical utility if they can ever be mass produced. You should think of them more like a GPU. A quantum computer is like a QPU, it is a co-processor that the CPU sends commands to when it needs to compute something of which the whole or part of the problem can be sped up by the QPU. One commenter mentions prime factorization, but a lot of linear algebra problems can be sped up as well, and linear algebra is pretty much the basis for everything these days, from games to AI. While it cannot solve _all_ linear algebra problems more efficiently, the fact it can solve _some_ means that if you could offload those specific problems to the QPU, you could improve performance. Hard to tell _how much,_ but with Moore's law coming to an end, any performance gains means a lot more these days.
@@amihartz You might want to recheck that Moore's law thing. Though we're hitting physical limits for transistors, there's a lot of room to improve. It's predicted that computation will be exponential for a while yet
@@halbgefressen9768 it's highly doubtful that superconducting qubits on a grid topology will ever be able to run Shor's algorithm though. And if you pay attention, Google, IBM and other QPU racers stopped selling that hope for a while now. For good reasons: it is centuries away at best considering the development pace of the technology, with problems remaining on the road for which we don't even have a theorical solution. "Yeah but Google's breakthrough is a step in the right direction!!" Yeah jumping technically brings you closer to the moon.
Quantum computers are like cats in boxes-they're either solving the world's hardest problems or doing absolutely nothing, and we won’t know until we check!
It doesn't work, that is the things. It's modern theoretical physics applied to CS, just a scam. In the first place using analog instead of digital is not the huge breakthrough they seem to think it is, we decided to go with digital for a reason. They also like to use complex numbers for no reason, and a long list of other unnecessarily complex concepts designed to confuse the reader into submission.
@@Robert-zc8hr”Use complex numbers for no reason” it quantum computing what are you even saying, complex numbers are the foundation of most of mathematics. In my EEE degree it was impossible to get past the theory on day one without complex numbers. Your statement sounds like someone it’s spoken by someone with a CS background who doesn’t understand how complex physics and engineering really is
@@justgame5508 Anything you do with complex numbers you can do with vectors and matrices. There may be reasons sometimes to change notations, but my comment is that it is not justified most of the time, the justification is just to make it look more complicated than it is. Honestly it's not even about complex numbers, it's about making things unnecessarily complicated so people must believe them instead of trying to understand. Not the first time it happens, it's as old as humanity, religions do it, the Chinese did it with the writing system, economist also do it all the time, we also have it in CS with P=NP, infinite sets, halting problem, etc.
@ So? Vecotrs and matrices are no simpler than complex numbers and aren’t as elegant at representing the problems complex numbers solve. “They’re using vectors to confuse people, that concept would be far simpler and more elegant if they just used complex numbers”. Your original statement has no substance, it’s words for the sake of words
@@justgame5508 You're too focused in the complex numbers thing, was just an example. To a layman, complex numbers are much more difficult to explain than vectors, main reason being wording "imaginary?" etc. My point is that they make it more complex (to understand) than needed because of stuff like this, I'm not talking about the true complexity of the subject matter.
For real, usually I'm a fan but this video was such a miss. Not only low-effort (e.g. "a" and "b" instead of "alpha" and "beta", "cubits" instead of "qubits") but also falling into the QC hype and misrepresenting how quantum algorithms actually work. "Wikipedia introduction" is the perfect way to put it.
You're basically describing every "current event" tuber lmao, he's just brief about it to the point where it's actually efficient to watch instead of seeing crit1kal act like a clown when discussing it, or some doombait tuber telling you the world is ending for real this time
The development of a useful quantum algorithm is a complex process that can take months or even years, depending on the number of people involved. It requires a deep understanding of quantum concepts, rigorous validation, optimization, and adaptation to available hardware, which still has significant limitations. Additionally, it often involves interdisciplinary collaboration between physics, mathematics, computer science, and specific application areas.
Willow can solve ONE problem septiliian times faster than a supercomputer. And that problem is a quantum computing specific one. Kind of silly to generalize and say Willow is Septillian times faster than El Capitan when it's infinitely better at everything else.
Right. Even when they start being useful, for the foreseeable future I strongly suspect quantum computers will only be _really_ useful for simulating quantum physics. And speaking as someone with a physics background, that'll be pretty cool by itself. But we're not about to get "Quantum GPUs" or quantum mobile phones and they wouldn't be good for much even if we did. tl;dr If you only take one thing away from this video let it be this: quantum computers are NOT SIMPLY MUCH FASTER CLASSICAL COMPUTERS !
Fun Fact: A group of Minecraft players managed to create a supercomputer that was stronger that the supercomputer used in US Navy operations… just to find a really tall cactus.
It would be kind of funny if we have to start sending one time pads by physical, old-time mail to protect from quantum decryption😂 "Here's 500TB of one time pads on SD-cards, should cover the next few months of communication!"
I'm still waiting for a cryptanalyst to publicly break my novel encrypt-gib symmetric algo which, instead of XORing streams after confusion, instead uses the round function to create JIT 1-time pads to then create the ciphertext. All I get from them is "trust me bro" nonsense. The efficiency gain is in simplicity with the cost of key and storage size. But simplicity gain is huge.
@@ibgib Do you have a link to the repo/white paper? Not a cryptologist just curious about the use of JIT OTP's, quick google search just brings results for RSA/AES
It's really not that hard to introduce security measures for this. It'll just need an update to all security things. Computers from decaes ago likely couldn't hold up security wise against computers of today, it's not absurd to expect new transitions like this every few decades as tech increases.
Right. We just need to update all encryption globally and we'll be fine :). (you're not _wrong_ BTW, in fact that's what we're already doing in implementing "quantum safe" encryption schemes, it just tickles me when people try to make a gargantuan task appear super easy by simply _stating_ things like "It's really not that hard..." :)
@@anonymes2884 I mean, in a sense, it really isn't. Computers are an incredibly volotile technology, with new risks, vulnerabilities, and patches appearing on the daily. It was just a matter of time until someone figured out how to make all previous security irrelevent. I am very familiar with what's required on the subject, I am also very familiar with similar situations. Everyone freaks out and throws a fit saying the world will end, and then the actual people doing the work impliment fixes, and most things go as planned. Sure, a bunch of systems will be vulnerable to anyone with millions to throw at the problem, but thats really already the case. We just know what and where the vulnerability is this time. think of the year 2000, a good chunk of people believed all computers were going to just crap themselves. But with some smart thinking it was handled pretty alright. TLDR: Meh, just another decade in typical computing.
@@kzone674quantum effects are less observable at scale this makes perfect sense to me. You are probably still trying to think of things in terms of classical physics
@@Sleight-l4y no, quite the opposite quantum effects are VERY significant at this scale, it is a known result from the modeling and theory of the first quantum circuits that error rates increase with size of qubits (or the respective dimension of the Hilbert space). If there is one thing that going quantum has taught us is that you always have a degree of uncertainty when measuring a given observable, and loosely speaking, composite observables means more degrees of uncertainty (and I'm sure there's an argument here regarding to entropy and the increasing of accessible states of a system). They could've somehow came up with a novel error mitigation method but I confess I did not read the article (I hope they did :) )
I'm not sure if anybody has noticed this, but if you repeatedly double tap on the left side of the screen to go back a few seconds right at the beginning of the video you get a pretty sick sample for a banger track 0:01
@@4kills482 Not unaffected, but affected much, much less. Grover's algorithm requires you to double the number of bits to get the same security against brute force attacks, but that's a very easy mitigation.
As someone who considering a career in cybersecurity, I’m now really appreciating the fact I’ve been researching quantum physics for years now out of curiosity, as that’s gonna really help me in the occupation.
Yes. NIST has standards on their website and even C code you can download that implements them. Most companies have yet to adopt these, but they are available already. Some VPN programs has claimed to have implemented them.
@@ThePallidor it ain't bs, simulating reality is quantum ways is crucial to major breakthroughs. Today its used for useless stuff but it it scales. We can possibly simulate and find a room temperature super conductor and if it can be mass manfactured? game over. This is just one possibility.
@@ThePallidor .... no? i mean the pop-sci explanations of QM (including this video) are terrible garbage that confuse more people than they educate, but it's a real field.
the scariest thing is not about future communications being compromised. the scary shit is when all the collected/intercepted data can be decrypted at will.
yeah thats the real issue...i cant wait for the first time somebody runs for office somewhere in the world and somebody else whips out the now decrypted group chat messages they intercepted when the first person was 15...wont that just be lovely?
@@WoolyCow pff, that's childs play. I'm more so concerned about top secret correspondence between presidents and their generals or whatnot. Also, all the passwords that have ever been will be out there, so you better hope that you have 2fa
@@riddixdan5572 jokes on them my password was 'qwertu' all along...no brute force, quantum or otherwise, could ever figure out my genius scheme of skipping a letter
Holy shit, these automatic Audio Translations are terrifying - every once in a while youtube just jumpscares me with this AI Voice screaming at me in an unexpressive tone^^
@@vibaj16 go to options, audiotracks - there you will see multiple ai audiotracks for different languages. I live in Germany so it sometimes defaults to the German Ai audiotracks instead of the entertaining voice over I come here for. No rage bait.
Probably good to mention: you don't have to be afraid that quantum computers will be available any time soon to any 13 year old hacker who wants them. That problem that was mentioned in the video about those chips needing to be really, really, really, seriously really cold is fundamental to quantum computers. And you can't draw a parallel with the progress of binary computers. That necessity for cold is a physics problem, not a computer science problem, so the logic of "this will gradually improve" doesn't apply in the same way as with traditional computers. Meaning that for the foreseeable future, the electricity bill is and will remain darn near unaffordable. It's why typically only megacorporations, governments and colab academic institutions have them. So to make quantum computers feasable for consumers, we first need to discover completely new quantum physics theorems, or finally invent one of them room-temperature superconductors (and despite someone claiming too have invented one every 5 years or so, progress in that area still isn't looking very hopeful so far).
also, post-quantum encryption algorithms have already been invented, and it's not like you need a quantum computer to run them. They work fine on classical computers.
Well, yes and no. There are other types of quantum computing hardware which _don't_ use superconductors (e.g. trapped ion qubits) so those hard limits only apply to this particular approach. But regardless, it's still true that, as far as we can tell, quantum computers (and Shor's algorithm) only help break encryption that depends on factoring large numbers and we're _already_ moving away (albeit slowly) from that type of encryption. So by the time quantum computers _are_ widely available, IF that ever happens (either via other hardware/materials science advances or sure, much more excitingly IMO but also _much_ less likely, new physics), it _should_ be mostly irrelevant for day to day encryption anyway (though _stored_ data using factoring style encryption _will_ still be crackable - it's widely believed in security circles that various entities are hoovering up and storing vast quantities of encrypted data _now_ in the hopes that _future_ quantum computers will allow them to break it _and_ at least some of the information will still be useful).
@The_Loose_Spirit: Dear God yes. That is not to say I don't believe governments can be evil. But have you ever met 13 year old hacker boys? That is a pretty high evilness bar to clear.
The 20 ish years between quantum computing going mainstream and money becoming useless after everything becomes autonamous through AI and robotics is going to really suck
Money can't become useless as it is simply currency, no organized thing can function without some form of currency exchange. If anything the currency will simply be different from money, but will function pretty much the same.
It will never become mainstream. The problem is that making something freeze close to absolute zero constantly takes a tremendous amount of power. Households, normal businesses, and the powergrid as a whole could not maintain a wide quantum network. At best, the technology would be limited to large corporations. That's obviously not a good thing.
1:01 It's on December 10, 2024 (Jumada al-Akhir 8, 1446 AH) and you're watching Fireship Videos about Google's New Computing Chip on the Code Report Series.
Offline encryption that doesn’t have sufficient security to prevent brute force attacks will be o7 when they release this but everything else is fine. People are freaking out of nothing.
2:59 the first time i heard their announcement, i thought this was gonna be a consumer chip, and i was like "wtf, did they already figure their way around this absolute zero thing?" now that i think about it, i feel like this announcement is gonna lead to "quantum" becoming a marketing phrase, like "ai" and "smart" did
Keeping a Qubit in superposition seems like trying to hold a magnet the right distance from an object from which it neither attracts or repels. The system collapsing to either 0 or 1 would be like the magnet either pushing away from or snapping to another magnetic object.
isn't schroedinger's cat supposed to be a *critique* of the idea of quantum superpositions though? like the thought experiment is supposed to make you go "obviously the cat is *either* dead or alive, you just don't know which yet because you haven't checked. it is not both 'dead and alive', nor is it 'neither dead nor alive', you not knowing which it is changes nothing about reality"
I wouldn't call it a critique; it's more how non-intuitive physics can get at atomic scales, so that you cannot apply usual day-to-day physical intuition in the quantum level. You would agree it would be absurd for me to say that the cat is dead *and* alive but it does not become absurd if I say that a qubit is both in the 0 and 1 position.
I'm not too worried about the cyber security aspect of quamtum computers. Attackers that use quantum computers will simply be countered by new quantum encryption algorithms. The question is how we transition. What I'm more interested in is the effect it might have on AI. Imagine a neural network able to function by utilizing 1 and 0 at the same time. You might get a being capable of unpredictible complex thought.
recently IBM said it was specifically aiming to reduce noise rather than increase qubits because more qubits on a chip was just so noisy you actually had less 'real' bits. Almost all the bits were required for error correction. this seems to be a HUGE problem
I saw a quantum computing expert on nottingham university's youtube describe quantum computers as magic boxes that spit out results without any understanding of the inner working. Didn't make sense to me, you can't build something like that to begin with and even if you somehow could you could never treat its output as correct as you couldn't work backwards to validate it.
There are problems that are VERY hard to brute force, but very easy to verify a solution to. Factoring large prime numbers is an obvious example. You can just multiply the two output numbers together and check that it equals the original number.
@@ayybe7894 You misunderstand. If you do have a "magical box" that spits out the right answer all of the time, while you can verify that each answer it produces is correct you can never actually trust any answer it gives because you don't know how it reached that answer, and the only way you could then tell if any new answer is correct is by working through it in a normal way which then takes as long or longer. That's what doesn't make sense to me, if you even could make a system that works in that way (no idea) you'd never be safe to trust it and so it would be pointless.
@@mchammer5026 You say oversimplified and not simply wrong. I know nothing about the subject beyond a little bit of pop-sci channel stuff occasionally. What makes you say oversimplified?
@jimmydesouza4375 it's not like it's a black box in the sense that we don't understand what's going on. it's a black box in the sense that you can't go in mid-calculation and check what state it is in (as you would for a debugger in a classical program). the claim that you can't verify the answers also only applies to a subset of problems. many problems are such that it's hard to find a solution, but easy to verify once you have a candidate solution. @ayybe7894 gave the very good (if obvious) example of factoring numbers. say the task you're interested in is factoring big numbers. you have a number, you want to know its factors. doing this on a classical computer is hard. so hard we base encryption on it. doing it on quantum hardware is "easy". once you have the quantum hardware, you ask it "what are the factors of this big number?" and it gives you two factors (well it actually only gives you one but that's details). it's easy to check if those are actually the factors. if not, you ask it again, until, when you multiply the numbers it gives you, you get your original number back. problem solved.
A quick clarification: a physical qubit is not the same as a logical qubit. The error-correcting surface code qubits you mentioned are Google's approach to creating one logical qubit. For instance, a 7x7 grid of superconducting qubits works together in unison to form a single logical qubit for gate operations. Meaning when superconducting Q-computers advertise 105 or 504 qubits, the actual usable qubits are significantly less due to QEC, Additionally, decoherence times are a crucial factor when discussing qubits. Superconducting qubits have decoherence times on the order of nanoseconds. While their fast gate speeds are advantageous, the short coherence times make them unsuitable for deep computations, which are often required for many commercial applications.
This is a very mean way to put it. I work in the field, and using hybrid approaches as well as adiabatic quantum annealing, we are making significant breakthroughs in factorization challenges. While we’re still far from 128-bit numbers, progress tends to come exponentially.
@waldolemmer a and α are only as different as foo and bar. Variables don't mean anything when not in context, neither in math, nor in computing, nor in any other form of science. I can call schrödingers wave function Y instead of Ψ and nothing would change as long as we both knew what I was talking about.
Don't let this distract you from the the fact that in 1966, AI Bundy scored four touchdowns in a single game while playing for the Polk High School Panthers in the 1966 city championship game versus Andrew Johnson High School, including the game-winning touchdown in the final seconds against his old nemesis, "Spare Tire" Dixon.
Willow calculates in parallel universes, yet Chrome still eats all your RAM in every single one.
Clever idea on that channel...
And constantly calls home to 1e100 goog servers just like firefox
@@dertythegrower a googol google servers?
"It is a septillion times faster than normal CPUs!"
At doing what?
"Simulating quantum computer circuits...."
Oh.
Real
Someone commented on the Google announcement that they were gonna wait for the Fireship video so they could actually understand it lol
Yeah lmao I stopped watching that video halfway through after seeing that comment and came here instead
@@typotheticalme too
litterally came here cos of that comment too lol :)
Well yeah
still not easy to understand
This will take "it works on my machine" to a whole new level.
@@TotoAndrei Dockerize the chip and the programmer man ! What are u noob
there is a possibility that it works on my machine*
@@rijumondal6876 But if he is on Windows, his WSL2 image is just going to collapse into a singularity anyway. 🚀
Flaky tests will get worst?
@@rijumondal6876 nah, just entangle a spun up parallel universe
Quantum computing feels like another case of "it will be ready in 5 years" for many decades to come. Just like fusion for example.
It's already done just like AI, but not available for the peasant. Why would it be? We are stuck in the 2000s with mind control through "social apps" and other things.
Now the real science which is growing exponentially and changing rapidly that the peasant universities can't even fathom is available just to some.
Nobody has every said fusion is coming in a few years. The most optimistic previsions put large scale fusion energy production at the 2050-2060 decade
We have had "computers using "quantum" physics since the 1950's, it's just most wankers get off on the total lack of understanding they have and physics , computing and "quantum effects"
the big problem is that if you don't specify the problem EXACTLY & it has a single solution, then the quantum result returned is ALL the answers Xored together
this is what they call the "error rate", so basically you dont know if the answer you get back is a single solution you want or a totally useless multiple answer.
so then you need a traditional computer to check the result.
It's on the list of yet to be released breakthroughs like Graphene batteries
@@blakelmj "We absolutely know it might be revolutionary!"
In 2019 they said their Quantum Computer did a calculation that would take a normal computer 10,000 years to do. Then a short time later someone did the same calculation in the same amount of time that it took the Quantum Computer to do it. And if you read the new paper from Google they are expecting something similar this time too
And then at some point the calculation was run on a computer from the 90s😂
I don't know dude. Sounds as "groundbreaking" as their fusion claims
I heard a cybersecurity guy say: "quantum computer will eventually destroy rsa but all that would do is force people to switch to an algorithm that is hard to run for quantum computers" and it made me less stressed about the issue
you shouldnt be stressed about it anyway.
Smart people will solve any issues caused by it, which will trickle down to us less smart people. its a non-issue.
@@selectionnwho smart people 😂😂😂😂😂😂 ....
iirc there are already encryption algorithms that are quantum-resistant
@@chuck600 this is true, and some companies have already switched to future proof algorithms, but the issue is that current communications using outdated algorithms can still be saved by bad actors and then pushed through a quantum computer year in the future. So anything we send across the Internet right now could potentially be saved and stored somewhere until there's enough computing power to break it open
in other words "don't worry about it bro trust me"
TempleOS remains unaffected.
And protected from the glownig-
Just like Toyota
IBM Quantum System Two cries in the corner
feeble technological creations of man can never dream of matching the holy divinity of templeOS, the OS of God.
@@rj7250a
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Turn to him and repent from your sins today ❤️
Being able to do useless work so quickly is my favorite thing about quantum computers
Where are you going after you die?
What happens next? Have you ever thought about that?
Repent today and give your life to Jesus Christ to obtain eternal salvation. Tomorrow may be too late my brethen😢.
Hebrews 9:27 says "And as it is appointed unto man once to die, but after that the judgement
@@JesusPlsSaveMe Thanks no thanks. Your God, should he be real, would be nothing but a blackmailing narcissist forcing you to either serve him or suffer. I'd rather return to dust than live with him.
Step 1: Make useless technology.
Step 2: Come up with way to make insane weapon with previously useless technology.
Step 3: Once everyone else has said weapon, maybe release to the public so they can come up with useful/helpful things to do with the technology.
@@JesusPlsSaveMe
An afterlife zealot.
I thought that's what TH-cam was for!
PhD student here in Quantum Error Correction: couple of notes on your video:
1: it’s important to note that “parallel” operations on a quantum computer require a significant amount of measurements on the computer to extract useful information. This means that you can’t just run all possibilities at once and magically get the answer even with leveraging entanglement. It’s actually been shown that a fully parallel classical computer is more computationally powerful than a quantum computer.
2: Not all quantum computers require ultra cold operating temperatures. Because and Google and IBM have large marketing budgets, people think that superconducting quantum computers are the ones leading the pack. But they are actually the noisiest qubits out there. You can use atoms, photons, or other quantum objects to run things a much higher temps like 1K or even room temperature for NV center qubits.
3: The algorithm that supposedly takes 10^25 years to run on a classical computer, is pretty much the quantum computer simulating itself. Not super impressive. People have beaten google and IBM’s previous claims at this on a laptop, and this one will probably go the same way.
4: The biggest breakthrough is demonstrating that error correction is sound in principle, but their implementation is still the most inefficient way of doing things.
Thanks for the explanation!
thank you for this, too few people understand this and take the headlines at face value, it’s great to have it broken down concisely by someone with your expertise
Disguise a delusion religious sect as "SoYenCe" and people will actually start to believe this kind of crap. Quantum whatever is pure "trust me bro" nonsense made up by idiots who believe they can intellectualize their way into eternity. There is no quantum computer and there never will be, because it is complete and utter bullshit. Please refer to the halting problem for confirmation.
Haha nerd 😊
Thanks for unraveling THE TRUTH
0:15 - Key- "certain problems".
aka "every NP-intermediate problem that is reducible to prime factorization", which is a fuckton of problems with very real and very practical applications
Literature is filled with problems that can be solved with QM these days. Yes, it will never replace a classical CPU because it cannot solve all problems more efficiently. But it can solve enough that it will always have practical utility if they can ever be mass produced. You should think of them more like a GPU. A quantum computer is like a QPU, it is a co-processor that the CPU sends commands to when it needs to compute something of which the whole or part of the problem can be sped up by the QPU. One commenter mentions prime factorization, but a lot of linear algebra problems can be sped up as well, and linear algebra is pretty much the basis for everything these days, from games to AI. While it cannot solve _all_ linear algebra problems more efficiently, the fact it can solve _some_ means that if you could offload those specific problems to the QPU, you could improve performance. Hard to tell _how much,_ but with Moore's law coming to an end, any performance gains means a lot more these days.
@@amihartz You might want to recheck that Moore's law thing. Though we're hitting physical limits for transistors, there's a lot of room to improve. It's predicted that computation will be exponential for a while yet
@@halbgefressen9768 it's highly doubtful that superconducting qubits on a grid topology will ever be able to run Shor's algorithm though. And if you pay attention, Google, IBM and other QPU racers stopped selling that hope for a while now. For good reasons: it is centuries away at best considering the development pace of the technology, with problems remaining on the road for which we don't even have a theorical solution.
"Yeah but Google's breakthrough is a step in the right direction!!"
Yeah jumping technically brings you closer to the moon.
@christopherbelanger6612 Moore's law is literally about transistors...
Quantum computers are like cats in boxes-they're either solving the world's hardest problems or doing absolutely nothing, and we won’t know until we check!
😂
...underrated and underappreciated comment! 😎♥️👌
Schrodinger ref?
@@1nwb-4dnws wait, what game is he reffing?
cats in boxes are definitely not solving world's hardest problems.
Greetings to the guy who commented on the announcement video that he's waiting for this one
ok
😂😂😂 was looking for him
Yeah I was also looking for him
hahaha was looking for this. this is hilarious @MrLe0ni is the guy.
lol everyone is looking for him(including me)
But can it run doom?
Everything runs Doom!
@@SirDamatoIII But not willow. FAIL for googly.
For 100 microseconds
Yes. No. Actually both, but you wont know untill you try.
@@YomenChannel lmao good one
I want an hour long video explaining how all this works in depth so I can understand it in this style
It doesn't work, that is the things. It's modern theoretical physics applied to CS, just a scam. In the first place using analog instead of digital is not the huge breakthrough they seem to think it is, we decided to go with digital for a reason. They also like to use complex numbers for no reason, and a long list of other unnecessarily complex concepts designed to confuse the reader into submission.
@@Robert-zc8hr”Use complex numbers for no reason” it quantum computing what are you even saying, complex numbers are the foundation of most of mathematics. In my EEE degree it was impossible to get past the theory on day one without complex numbers. Your statement sounds like someone it’s spoken by someone with a CS background who doesn’t understand how complex physics and engineering really is
@@justgame5508 Anything you do with complex numbers you can do with vectors and matrices. There may be reasons sometimes to change notations, but my comment is that it is not justified most of the time, the justification is just to make it look more complicated than it is.
Honestly it's not even about complex numbers, it's about making things unnecessarily complicated so people must believe them instead of trying to understand. Not the first time it happens, it's as old as humanity, religions do it, the Chinese did it with the writing system, economist also do it all the time, we also have it in CS with P=NP, infinite sets, halting problem, etc.
@ So? Vecotrs and matrices are no simpler than complex numbers and aren’t as elegant at representing the problems complex numbers solve. “They’re using vectors to confuse people, that concept would be far simpler and more elegant if they just used complex numbers”. Your original statement has no substance, it’s words for the sake of words
@@justgame5508 You're too focused in the complex numbers thing, was just an example. To a layman, complex numbers are much more difficult to explain than vectors, main reason being wording "imaginary?" etc. My point is that they make it more complex (to understand) than needed because of stuff like this, I'm not talking about the true complexity of the subject matter.
Classic Computer: Yes No
Quantum Computer: Yes Maybe No
More like: Yyyyyeeeaaahhhhnnnnnooooo
maybe maybe maybe
Let's Bogosort everything now
Jesus loves you. Repent and turn away from your sins today 🤗
I had no idea BOGO Sort was a sin. The more you know 😅
@@JesusPlsSaveMe He's too far gone
@@GuardianTam it is
@JesusPlsSaveMe actually one of the few times where you are needed
Wikipedia introduction to quantum computers > summarize two news articles with chatgpt > joke transition into sponsor segment
The real fireship is swimming in the Bahamas atm, his AI clone has been uploading his videos for months now
Is it that easy
For real, usually I'm a fan but this video was such a miss. Not only low-effort (e.g. "a" and "b" instead of "alpha" and "beta", "cubits" instead of "qubits") but also falling into the QC hype and misrepresenting how quantum algorithms actually work. "Wikipedia introduction" is the perfect way to put it.
could you elaborate
I didnt mind the video (but im not knowledgeable about quantum computation)
You're basically describing every "current event" tuber lmao, he's just brief about it to the point where it's actually efficient to watch instead of seeing crit1kal act like a clown when discussing it, or some doombait tuber telling you the world is ending for real this time
Rip Harambe. He would have been so proud.
F.
the only way to honor harambe is going all in with quantum-agi or whatever complicated name that can rip off money from investors
F
This is seriously a watershed moment in the timeline. It has been getting exponentially more weird since this.
Dixout
The development of a useful quantum algorithm is a complex process that can take months or even years, depending on the number of people involved. It requires a deep understanding of quantum concepts, rigorous validation, optimization, and adaptation to available hardware, which still has significant limitations. Additionally, it often involves interdisciplinary collaboration between physics, mathematics, computer science, and specific application areas.
4:00 The xiahongshu chip
the future of yapdollar is brighter than ever
Willow can solve ONE problem septiliian times faster than a supercomputer. And that problem is a quantum computing specific one. Kind of silly to generalize and say Willow is Septillian times faster than El Capitan when it's infinitely better at everything else.
Like having a calculator that can solve square roots ultra fast, but has no option for + , / %.
It is like saying that an IRL river is a septillion times better at modelling fluid dynamics than even our best super computer...
Like, yeah?
@@SimpMcSimpy right except exchange the square root for some exotic operation that nobody has even heard of and that is not remotely useful to anyone.
@@SimpMcSimpyi still vote for supercomputer 😂😂😂
Right. Even when they start being useful, for the foreseeable future I strongly suspect quantum computers will only be _really_ useful for simulating quantum physics. And speaking as someone with a physics background, that'll be pretty cool by itself.
But we're not about to get "Quantum GPUs" or quantum mobile phones and they wouldn't be good for much even if we did.
tl;dr If you only take one thing away from this video let it be this: quantum computers are NOT SIMPLY MUCH FASTER CLASSICAL COMPUTERS !
IDK why but all the sarcasm from this guy keeps making me a better developer.
And yet it still can't run Crysis.
2005 tier joke, and meme before memes were called memes
@@dertythegrower Tell me you're a zoomer without telling me you're a zoomer. Lookup 'All your base are belong to us'
They can't even properly run Doom
@@dertythegrower Dawkins called memes memes in 1976. We weren't even in our fathers gonads.
@@nivyan you have no chance to survive make your time
1:18 same, I still remember when I commented hi and he said hi back, that was four years ago. Good times
0:57 thats a relief
2:24 Quantum deez nuts
balz
😂😂
glad people like you exist to this day. You are the embodiment of the new ooga booga
@@achref3251 ☝🏻
I thought the same thing, then he mentioned entanglement and thought of a testicular hernia…
2:04 You can imagine a fireship video and there's a certain probability that A.I will be mentioned.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
A.I. is first mentioned 1:08 into the video, whole 56 seconds earlier
the probability is 1 lol
0:08 Was that Prime?
Duh
TheStartupI™️, so yes. Yes it is. Did you not see him in that one Fireship video?
The ability to compute wrong answers at unimaginable speeds - what a time to be alive!
but how many CHROME TABS Willow can open?
that's the real benchmark right there
Fun Fact: A group of Minecraft players managed to create a supercomputer that was stronger that the supercomputer used in US Navy operations… just to find a really tall cactus.
source: my ass
your reddit gold sir
Minecraft players revolutionize computer science just find a goddamn world seed.
uh?
Please use supplementary resources other than youtube
This will take all your regex skills to a whole new level. I guarantee it
And this video is exactly 5:00 minutes long.
And exactly 4:20 without the sponsored segment
@@oshdubh4:16
Still gonna take me 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to understand though
That image at 0:35 is diabolical. 😂
Finally, we can now calculate the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything
Would is still be 42? ;-)
The first rule about bitcoin is don't talk about quantum computing. The second rule about bitcoin is don't talk about quantum computing....
why?
@@SimpMcSimpy Quantum computing can break the blockchain encryption btc relies own (essentially rendering it worthless)
not only bitcoin will die with quantum computing, eryone will know the horrible things you watch at night.
see you in 10 years when it's still not a concern
@@bitcoinmechanic sure. what's your wallet address?
"easy daily habit" WOW what a nice way to phrase "addiction"
This result was published in August, but everyone is celebrating this as if it came out yesterday.
Because google's video came out yesterday
Quantum computing always looks to me like the year of the Linux desktop, I'll believe it when it actually happens.
Love the Hawk reference. That kind of quality journalism is why I’m here.
one time pad remains undefeated
it is the eternal solution to cryptography, at least until the other side gets it
@@Gogglesofkrome or you used it accidentally twice
It would be kind of funny if we have to start sending one time pads by physical, old-time mail to protect from quantum decryption😂
"Here's 500TB of one time pads on SD-cards, should cover the next few months of communication!"
I'm still waiting for a cryptanalyst to publicly break my novel encrypt-gib symmetric algo which, instead of XORing streams after confusion, instead uses the round function to create JIT 1-time pads to then create the ciphertext. All I get from them is "trust me bro" nonsense. The efficiency gain is in simplicity with the cost of key and storage size. But simplicity gain is huge.
@@ibgib Do you have a link to the repo/white paper? Not a cryptologist just curious about the use of JIT OTP's, quick google search just brings results for RSA/AES
It's really not that hard to introduce security measures for this. It'll just need an update to all security things. Computers from decaes ago likely couldn't hold up security wise against computers of today, it's not absurd to expect new transitions like this every few decades as tech increases.
Right. We just need to update all encryption globally and we'll be fine :).
(you're not _wrong_ BTW, in fact that's what we're already doing in implementing "quantum safe" encryption schemes, it just tickles me when people try to make a gargantuan task appear super easy by simply _stating_ things like "It's really not that hard..." :)
@@anonymes2884 I mean, in a sense, it really isn't. Computers are an incredibly volotile technology, with new risks, vulnerabilities, and patches appearing on the daily. It was just a matter of time until someone figured out how to make all previous security irrelevent.
I am very familiar with what's required on the subject, I am also very familiar with similar situations. Everyone freaks out and throws a fit saying the world will end, and then the actual people doing the work impliment fixes, and most things go as planned. Sure, a bunch of systems will be vulnerable to anyone with millions to throw at the problem, but thats really already the case. We just know what and where the vulnerability is this time.
think of the year 2000, a good chunk of people believed all computers were going to just crap themselves. But with some smart thinking it was handled pretty alright.
TLDR: Meh, just another decade in typical computing.
3:13 they get exponentially worse as there is more noise in the system. It's just like with analog tech.
Yeah, I also thought that that sounded weird, how can they possibly have less errors as they scale up the system, sounds physically impossible to me.
@@kzone674 just another unreasonably quantum optimistic channel. I've added it to "not recommend from it".
@@kzone674quantum effects are less observable at scale this makes perfect sense to me. You are probably still trying to think of things in terms of classical physics
@@Sleight-l4y no, quite the opposite quantum effects are VERY significant at this scale, it is a known result from the modeling and theory of the first quantum circuits that error rates increase with size of qubits (or the respective dimension of the Hilbert space). If there is one thing that going quantum has taught us is that you always have a degree of uncertainty when measuring a given observable, and loosely speaking, composite observables means more degrees of uncertainty (and I'm sure there's an argument here regarding to entropy and the increasing of accessible states of a system). They could've somehow came up with a novel error mitigation method but I confess I did not read the article (I hope they did :) )
@@Sleight-l4y btw I'll be happy to try to dig a more concrete proof of what I mean from my old notes, but this is just my thoughts on the fly
You are the only channel I watch on daily basis. And I'm not even programmer. Better than most news subscriptions
I'm not sure if anybody has noticed this, but if you repeatedly double tap on the left side of the screen to go back a few seconds right at the beginning of the video you get a pretty sick sample for a banger track
0:01
Future hacker be like: 'Encryption? Nah, I ran all the keys at once and got your password before you even hit 'Enter.'😂😂😂
If the passwords leaked* If not the hacker is thrown out of the window after 3 attempts and can eat grass.
Symmetric algorithms remain unaffected by quantum computing
@@4kills482what is that?
@@4kills482 Not unaffected, but affected much, much less. Grover's algorithm requires you to double the number of bits to get the same security against brute force attacks, but that's a very easy mitigation.
New tachyon computers that will do the work you needed yesterday
We all know what these quantum computer chips will be used for:
social media bots
Shirley Advertising if goooogle are involved.
Quantum porn.
10 years ago when i studied Computer Science quantum computers were "just 10 years from now", they still are, just like fusion reactors.
Remember, progress happens exponentially (for the most part) LLMs also just appeared one day out of nowhere.
and those revolutionary batteries for EVs that let you drive 10000 miles and weight the same as a duck.
As someone who considering a career in cybersecurity, I’m now really appreciating the fact I’ve been researching quantum physics for years now out of curiosity, as that’s gonna really help me in the occupation.
Now I know why EL Capitan was so obvious.
Finally Dragon's Dogma 2 with locked 60 FPS
3:57 hacker gun fingers might be my new favorite stock clip
0:31 Dyson sphere? I thought this was a flat Earth channel!
Well the Earth can still be flat, they never said anything about the shape of the Sun...
He misspoke. He clearly meant Dyson Flat
@@TheBeNjiX34 According to most flat earthers sun does not exist, stars are apparently just "lights in the dome".
Just like the circle is made of segments, a video is sequence of frames.... Globe earth is a collection of flat planes.
just put two big solar cells on top and bottom of a flat sun.
Just bought a Quantum computer.
Now Im breaking every encryption out there to get some of the money back.
Will they finally be able to factorise numbers larger than 2 digits then?
We do have quantum proof encryption methods, so I tend not to worry so much about that.
Yes. NIST has standards on their website and even C code you can download that implements them. Most companies have yet to adopt these, but they are available already. Some VPN programs has claimed to have implemented them.
I'm confused as to why there was ZERO mention of post-quantum encryption in this video but OK!
dude just read you a wikipedia article, he wouldn't know about that.
Probably because Fireship knows QC is BS.
@@ThePallidor it ain't bs, simulating reality is quantum ways is crucial to major breakthroughs. Today its used for useless stuff but it it scales. We can possibly simulate and find a room temperature super conductor and if it can be mass manfactured? game over. This is just one possibility.
@@flutter4033 There is no quantum mechanical anything. The whole field is pure wordplay.
@@ThePallidor .... no? i mean the pop-sci explanations of QM (including this video) are terrible garbage that confuse more people than they educate, but it's a real field.
the scariest thing is not about future communications being compromised. the scary shit is when all the collected/intercepted data can be decrypted at will.
so communication of when bitcoin was still being created and shit
yeah thats the real issue...i cant wait for the first time somebody runs for office somewhere in the world and somebody else whips out the now decrypted group chat messages they intercepted when the first person was 15...wont that just be lovely?
@@WoolyCow pff, that's childs play. I'm more so concerned about top secret correspondence between presidents and their generals or whatnot. Also, all the passwords that have ever been will be out there, so you better hope that you have 2fa
@@riddixdan5572 jokes on them my password was 'qwertu' all along...no brute force, quantum or otherwise, could ever figure out my genius scheme of skipping a letter
But seriously though, can it run Crysis at 16k?
It can run all games, in every resolution, at the same time. As long as you don't observe it.
1:07 Science Students be like : I've Studied Chemistry!
Holy shit, these automatic Audio Translations are terrifying - every once in a while youtube just jumpscares me with this AI Voice screaming at me in an unexpressive tone^^
least obvious rage bait
@miberss there's "audio tracks" they aren't talking about the guy specifically
what are you talking about?
@@vibaj16 go to options, audiotracks - there you will see multiple ai audiotracks for different languages.
I live in Germany so it sometimes defaults to the German Ai audiotracks instead of the entertaining voice over I come here for.
No rage bait.
Probably good to mention: you don't have to be afraid that quantum computers will be available any time soon to any 13 year old hacker who wants them. That problem that was mentioned in the video about those chips needing to be really, really, really, seriously really cold is fundamental to quantum computers. And you can't draw a parallel with the progress of binary computers. That necessity for cold is a physics problem, not a computer science problem, so the logic of "this will gradually improve" doesn't apply in the same way as with traditional computers. Meaning that for the foreseeable future, the electricity bill is and will remain darn near unaffordable. It's why typically only megacorporations, governments and colab academic institutions have them.
So to make quantum computers feasable for consumers, we first need to discover completely new quantum physics theorems, or finally invent one of them room-temperature superconductors (and despite someone claiming too have invented one every 5 years or so, progress in that area still isn't looking very hopeful so far).
also, post-quantum encryption algorithms have already been invented, and it's not like you need a quantum computer to run them. They work fine on classical computers.
Well, yes and no. There are other types of quantum computing hardware which _don't_ use superconductors (e.g. trapped ion qubits) so those hard limits only apply to this particular approach. But regardless, it's still true that, as far as we can tell, quantum computers (and Shor's algorithm) only help break encryption that depends on factoring large numbers and we're _already_ moving away (albeit slowly) from that type of encryption.
So by the time quantum computers _are_ widely available, IF that ever happens (either via other hardware/materials science advances or sure, much more excitingly IMO but also _much_ less likely, new physics), it _should_ be mostly irrelevant for day to day encryption anyway (though _stored_ data using factoring style encryption _will_ still be crackable - it's widely believed in security circles that various entities are hoovering up and storing vast quantities of encrypted data _now_ in the hopes that _future_ quantum computers will allow them to break it _and_ at least some of the information will still be useful).
Yeah, but a bigger problem if governments use it. Do you really think people in power are fluffier than 13yo hackers?
@The_Loose_Spirit: Dear God yes. That is not to say I don't believe governments can be evil. But have you ever met 13 year old hacker boys? That is a pretty high evilness bar to clear.
@@anonymes2884 Thanks for that trapped ion qubits info. Hadn't heard of it. Going to check it out.
The 20 ish years between quantum computing going mainstream and money becoming useless after everything becomes autonamous through AI and robotics is going to really suck
If AI isn't hype, it'll almost certainly come first I suspect.
Money can't become useless as it is simply currency, no organized thing can function without some form of currency exchange. If anything the currency will simply be different from money, but will function pretty much the same.
This is why u need to learn. cuz u r talking bs now
@@anonymes2884AI no hype
It will never become mainstream. The problem is that making something freeze close to absolute zero constantly takes a tremendous amount of power. Households, normal businesses, and the powergrid as a whole could not maintain a wide quantum network. At best, the technology would be limited to large corporations. That's obviously not a good thing.
Yes, but can it legally help Diddy and Jay-Z at the same time?
1:01 It's on December 10, 2024 (Jumada al-Akhir 8, 1446 AH) and you're watching Fireship Videos about Google's New Computing Chip on the Code Report Series.
Excellent!
You're from middle east?
Too good 🤣
@@fahimuddin4401 No, I'm from Indonesia.
There are already Post Quantum Encryption algo's
Offline encryption that doesn’t have sufficient security to prevent brute force attacks will be o7 when they release this but everything else is fine. People are freaking out of nothing.
4:18 - It is fine, the new animal anchor was killed when Peanut the Squirrel died, we are back to the main timeline
"Dude, stop staring at my computer, you make it collapse to one condition"
"that's ignorant" made me put out a hearty chuckle
0:53 "But that's ignorant. By the end of this video, you'll understand how quantum computing actually works..."
Always love your human funny code man!
babe wake up new quantum computing still sucks as of today just dropped
3:34 cubits
Good qatch!
2:59 the first time i heard their announcement, i thought this was gonna be a consumer chip, and i was like "wtf, did they already figure their way around this absolute zero thing?"
now that i think about it, i feel like this announcement is gonna lead to "quantum" becoming a marketing phrase, like "ai" and "smart" did
“We now require passwords that are 1,000,000,000 characters long 🙄”
3:19 literally me
😂😂
Bruh wtf this was just released
It's a Great Video! Even though the Comments are more than 1K, this Video has a lot of Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry!
Up
According to TH-cam's Metadata, This Video was Uploaded at 00.19 WIB (UTC+7).
I woke up at 5 am and saw this Video : What are the comments? There are already more than 1,000 Comments.
I love how you summarized my 2 month internship back in 2020 in 4 minutes xD
Keeping a Qubit in superposition seems like trying to hold a magnet the right distance from an object from which it neither attracts or repels. The system collapsing to either 0 or 1 would be like the magnet either pushing away from or snapping to another magnetic object.
Every time google claims quantum supremacy, someone shows they could do it just as quick classically
lmao the editing is so good in this one....the.....timeline is certainly messed up 4:20
DO4H.
isn't schroedinger's cat supposed to be a *critique* of the idea of quantum superpositions though? like the thought experiment is supposed to make you go "obviously the cat is *either* dead or alive, you just don't know which yet because you haven't checked. it is not both 'dead and alive', nor is it 'neither dead nor alive', you not knowing which it is changes nothing about reality"
Yeah, it's just analogy to explain the goofy absurdity of the math - not to refute the model.
I wouldn't call it a critique; it's more how non-intuitive physics can get at atomic scales, so that you cannot apply usual day-to-day physical intuition in the quantum level. You would agree it would be absurd for me to say that the cat is dead *and* alive but it does not become absurd if I say that a qubit is both in the 0 and 1 position.
2:22 that's crystal clear now, perfect thanks 😵💫
Never thought I'd be reminded about the timeline anchor known as May 28th, 2016...
I'm not too worried about the cyber security aspect of quamtum computers. Attackers that use quantum computers will simply be countered by new quantum encryption algorithms. The question is how we transition.
What I'm more interested in is the effect it might have on AI. Imagine a neural network able to function by utilizing 1 and 0 at the same time. You might get a being capable of unpredictible complex thought.
So exciting!
I guess Google will use quantum computer to encrypt ads so we can't block them. Mark my words :D
And then we will use quantum computer to decrypt ads so we can block them.
Ez
Gotta catch em all
Damn, at Milestone 6 @3:29 that is going to be dope! With an AI administrator running that monster we'll be able to dominate the multiverse!
recently IBM said it was specifically aiming to reduce noise rather than increase qubits because more qubits on a chip was just so noisy you actually had less 'real' bits. Almost all the bits were required for error correction. this seems to be a HUGE problem
1:30 everything reminds me of her
0:16 Or Equivalent to 10^25 Times Faster.
0:23
I saw a quantum computing expert on nottingham university's youtube describe quantum computers as magic boxes that spit out results without any understanding of the inner working. Didn't make sense to me, you can't build something like that to begin with and even if you somehow could you could never treat its output as correct as you couldn't work backwards to validate it.
There are problems that are VERY hard to brute force, but very easy to verify a solution to. Factoring large prime numbers is an obvious example.
You can just multiply the two output numbers together and check that it equals the original number.
that's so oversimplified that many would call it straight up wrong.
@@ayybe7894 You misunderstand. If you do have a "magical box" that spits out the right answer all of the time, while you can verify that each answer it produces is correct you can never actually trust any answer it gives because you don't know how it reached that answer, and the only way you could then tell if any new answer is correct is by working through it in a normal way which then takes as long or longer.
That's what doesn't make sense to me, if you even could make a system that works in that way (no idea) you'd never be safe to trust it and so it would be pointless.
@@mchammer5026 You say oversimplified and not simply wrong. I know nothing about the subject beyond a little bit of pop-sci channel stuff occasionally. What makes you say oversimplified?
@jimmydesouza4375 it's not like it's a black box in the sense that we don't understand what's going on. it's a black box in the sense that you can't go in mid-calculation and check what state it is in (as you would for a debugger in a classical program). the claim that you can't verify the answers also only applies to a subset of problems. many problems are such that it's hard to find a solution, but easy to verify once you have a candidate solution. @ayybe7894 gave the very good (if obvious) example of factoring numbers. say the task you're interested in is factoring big numbers. you have a number, you want to know its factors. doing this on a classical computer is hard. so hard we base encryption on it. doing it on quantum hardware is "easy". once you have the quantum hardware, you ask it "what are the factors of this big number?" and it gives you two factors (well it actually only gives you one but that's details). it's easy to check if those are actually the factors. if not, you ask it again, until, when you multiply the numbers it gives you, you get your original number back. problem solved.
A quick clarification: a physical qubit is not the same as a logical qubit. The error-correcting surface code qubits you mentioned are Google's approach to creating one logical qubit. For instance, a 7x7 grid of superconducting qubits works together in unison to form a single logical qubit for gate operations. Meaning when superconducting Q-computers advertise 105 or 504 qubits, the actual usable qubits are significantly less due to QEC, Additionally, decoherence times are a crucial factor when discussing qubits. Superconducting qubits have decoherence times on the order of nanoseconds. While their fast gate speeds are advantageous, the short coherence times make them unsuitable for deep computations, which are often required for many commercial applications.
a guy pointed out that when md5 got broken we got SHA-256, and when quantum computers come, we will have also have quantum encryption.
My favorite quantum fact is that the largest number factorable by shor's is 21.
This is a very mean way to put it. I work in the field, and using hybrid approaches as well as adiabatic quantum annealing, we are making significant breakthroughs in factorization challenges. While we’re still far from 128-bit numbers, progress tends to come exponentially.
2:13 that's alpha and beta, genius
άλφα and βήτα are the same as a and b in a different script, genius
Source: trust me bro I am Greek
@@devnol We're not talking about Greek here, we're talking about math. And in math, a and alpha are two different things.
closed the tab after this part of the video, lol
@waldolemmer a and α are only as different as foo and bar. Variables don't mean anything when not in context, neither in math, nor in computing, nor in any other form of science. I can call schrödingers wave function Y instead of Ψ and nothing would change as long as we both knew what I was talking about.
@@devnol So you're saying it would be equally acceptable to call those variables "c" and "d"?
it's really crazy how nobody is talking about the book the elite society's money manifestation, it changed my life
bot
1:33 NO I DONT WANT TO BUY WHATEVER YOU’RE SELLING. LEAVE ME AND MY WIFE AND SON ALONE TO ENJOY THIS BEAUTIFUL DAY.
Don't let this distract you from the the fact that in 1966, AI Bundy scored four touchdowns in a single game while playing for the Polk High School Panthers in the 1966 city championship game versus Andrew Johnson High School, including the game-winning touchdown in the final seconds against his old nemesis, "Spare Tire" Dixon.