Just after we finished this video, news broke that the quantum computing startup Zapata ceased operation: quantumcomputingreport.com/zapata-ai-ceases-operations/
It doesn't need to be financially feasible. There are many exobytes (that's millions of terabytes) of traffic being saved right now in huge datacenters, which includes your traffic, only waiting until they can be easily cracked and all our data and actions decrypted and recorded. Your conversations, banking info, searches, þorn preferences, health and fitness data, you name it. All waiting its time of day to be fully accessible. There is no profit in this only because because this information is priceless
Did you hear the one about the quantum computer IT support guy? Whenever you called in for help, he always said 'Have you tried turning it on and off again at the same time?'
Hi Sabine, computer scientist here who's worked on this stuff. While I agree with you that a lot of caution and a lot less hype is the need of the hour, I would like to highlight that quantum information science in general isn't just quantum computing. QC has a far less famous yet far more successful cousin, quantum communication and metrology, which has seen feasible and practical applications many times over. The BB84 protocol is a great example. While it pains me to see all funding go towards building a QC, with every Tom, Dick and Harry trying to get on the gravy train, maybe you could consider talking about the other more successful aspects of this area of research?
You may be right here, but who is working on quantum-enabled communications? I'll look up BB84 but would appreciate any other pointers to interesting uses.
I'm a physicist, so I'll say I understand quantum at least a little bit. My problem is that I have never felt that I truly understood what it would mean to do a quantum calculation or have a "quantum program" or, similarly, to list what types of problems are amenable to quantum computation. Admittedly, I've put close to no effort into this, but when I've bumped into people and asked them to explain it to me, I've never gotten an answer. Another way to say this is that I have no sense of far the gap is between what people can do today and what is needed to do something useful. This is all background to ask if you can point me to something brief to read that will help me understand these questions? Do you know of anything? Some sort of QC primer for someone who knows QM already and wants to answer the questions I just posed (or be redirected constructively if those are gibberish questions).
@aidancollins1591 Thank you. These sound like excellent resources. I'll have a look. I've had people wave their hands and say things like qubits moving through gates is really superpositions moving through gates which is like parallel processing, but I've never understood how that hand waving turns into a real calculation, how the multiplicity gets high enough to matter, and a multitude of other questions. I'll go have a look at the things you mentioned. Sorry if I just typed gibberish.
Years ago IBM embraced "financial capitalism" and proceeded to shut down R&D, product development, and manufacturing plants. They are now a husk of their former selves. I used to work there but cannot tell you what they do these days (cloud solutions???). It's a sad tale but typical of many former kings of industry.
In high school I was in the Explorers Club and went to our weekly meetings at the huge RCA building . 50 years later and RCA is just dust in the wind...
@@PaulaXism They still ride on leasing mainframes. And yes there is still a market for them, they have some advantages over racks of commodity servers.
I am a Physicist and I talked to really highly regarded people actually doing quantum computing (they have a d wave machine) and my understanding is that setting it up takes a long long time and it will never be a general use computer but there is still funding in it. I think if it will be able to o one thing and one thing only, breaking encrypting it is already worth it for the (US) government.
The only problem with Quantum Computing are the investors that somehow constantly fall for the random startup, that promises random BS if you just give them a few million of moneys. Those startups love to make a lot of noise to get that money, and the average journalist then blindly copies that noise to turn it into a headline, that then forces Sabine to make a new video about why that was total BS.
That's the magic of the Citadel led US economy where hype farming for immediate profit is the only goal. Similar to AI, where it's a few companies among millions doing the innovation, rest are getting massive funding to publish ChatGPT wrappers and to hire AI consultants from Mckinsey. European market seems less inclined to do it, but investors are having a FOMO missing out on the hype money and are trying to convince people that this results in less innovation. Happened with crypto, happening with AI, will happen with Quantum computing when you'll see LinkedIn finance bros pretending to understand what superposition is.
Thing is, with current interest rates, if you have billions under management throwing a few million at blue sky is more rational than spread betting on horse races, since there is at least a chance one blue sky project either comes good, or the share price goes up due to irrational exuberance and you get out with a profit. People are making money on shares like Trump Media by paying close attention to the election polls, even though eventually it will trade below $1.
I do my Masters Degree in QUantum Computing and it's complicated. Not the field itself. The stabilizing part. If you are inside a saltmine 3km below the surface of the earth, you get astonishing results and low error. But as long as freaking backgroundradiation can cause decoherence we have problems with the "quantumness" of our qubits.
I am thinking of doing my masters next year in Quantum computing and quantum information because it seems interesting but I'm afraid if it is the best option because I do not intend to pursue a PhD and the industry for it seems to be small, very risky and competitive. What is you experience in the master's degree?
i really do not trust sabine at all. havent watched her much but her negative take on AI which im more educated on seemed unfounded and after being recommended this video now after the breakthrough did put a smile on my face lol. she just doesnt seem to really go in as much detail as someone reporting on the matter should, maybe in the other topics she is well-versed but her just blindly yapping at times has made me lose full trust in her opinion
@@SpeedRunsIRLboomer steps out if line to talk about stuff she knows jack shit about, and she acts like shes a expert because she knows alot about other stuff
I used to work for IBM. Can confirm, they gave up years ago, almost across the board. We joked our division was bankrolling the rest of IBMs pet projects, this included, since we were very profitable at the time. I left, but not long after layoffs hit that division to keep their pie in the sky projects running. Lots of good people out of work for huff and puff investors
@@bdcopp Depends heavily on what department. Generally colleagues are nice to work with and knowledgeable especially at R&D campuses. Management is a mixed bag but fine as far as large companies go.
The frontiers of the field aren't where they were even just a couple years ago. I really don't expect anything to fall apart, unless some external pressure forces it to. Getting a commercially viable product isn't an immediate goal, and never has been, so any change isn't likely to be based on the outlook of such.
Common sense. Whoa lol. This seems to be the case for almost every new sector in the world. At first it sucks, then it gets better. Then it seems “dead”. Then someone finds a way to get stuff done. Then people want it.
Back in the day, while I was a Nuclear Engineering graduate student in 1977, there was a lot of talk about how “Nuclear fusion was just around the corner”. Millions were being poured into it. I remember thinking that the Industry should focus on investing in small fission reactors instead, and build a highly reliable platform that can be replicated with good results in many places. But who wants to listen to a poor graduate student? The rich win, always! Arrogance still knows no bounds in the Abrahamic world! I see Quantum Computing as the next big debacle - Sabine you have correctly called it out - they will never get the error rates down. Don’t be misled by IBM and Google’s pronouncements. They are always chasing high profit margin dreams! 😂
Quantim computing investor pitch meetings must be like physics panels where Dr. Michio Kaku talks about all the "evidence" for string theory coming out "every day." Reminds me of used car salesmen, but without the keen fashion sense.
That’s because Dr. Kaku worked many many years behind writing string theory and you never give up your vested interest even if you’re wrong in the Academics world. Just look at Archeology, evidence for humans in N. America over 300,000 years ago and Universities are fuming 😡 over losing their funding from Ten Year PhD’s who spent their life trying to convince you people came to the Americas only since 10,000 years ago. Dogma.
@jaredf6205 These are all people who would have said that combustion engines wouldn't go anywhere when they were invented. Given time, almost every scientist is proven to be extremely biased or incompetent.
@@CarlosSpicyWangThis is the complete opposite of reality. Scientists do research, peer review other's work, and try and falsify their own. It's the ignorant like yourself that discount research performed by more capable minds - like the research that went into the combustion engine.
Years and years ago, I was asking questions about how quantum computing could ever deliver a viable product if for adding more qubits the operating temperature must drop significantly. It seemed like an exponentially difficult problem. I was told that I didn't understood it properly. Maybe I don't, but I got the smell right.
Temperature is near absolute zero. But the requirements on the environment to not interfere is insane.... This technology(if you may call it that) is a new field in physics where there are far more questions than answers at the moment.
There are sound reasons to suspect it is an exponentially difficult problem. Achieving the necessary level of stability for N + 1 qubits could easily be M times as hard as getting N qubits in the right state. Maybe M = 1.5. Or maybe M is 2. Or 10. Regardless the road from 50 qubits to 100 qubits in a useful state could be a very very long road.
If you dont have time, here is some summary: (00:00) The speaker predicted the hype around quantum computing would peak and falter in 2024, but now believes the situation will remain uncertain. (00:23) IBM presented a 1000+ qubit quantum chip with little performance details and quietly revised their ambitious roadmap to focus on error correction. (01:32) Quantum computing firms D-wave and Rigetti face delisting from the NY stock exchange due to low stock prices, while PsiQuantum raises funds and faces scrutiny. (02:20) Google made progress in error correction, demonstrating that increasing qubits can exponentially reduce errors, which is good news for IBM as well. (04:28) The speaker estimates that building a commercially useful quantum computer could cost up to $100 billion, making further investments risky for big companies and startups.
@@alanserjeant4947 Easier and more simple to build a quantum printer of quantum money. Why do physicists, engineers and mathematicians start from the premisse of systemic corruption to a financial system based mathematically on a mathematically absurd Ponzi algorithm?
One factor overlooked about investment is the government(s) this has encryption/decryption potential and thus is a national security issue. It's kind of like nuclear research was post WW2 that came with massive physics funding. The US government (NSA) has a very large black budget and lots of cash to spread around for R&D, so does China.
My guess is that the big companies aren't really interested in quantum computing, they are just interested in ensuring that they get there before any of their competitors. They only need to put enough money/effort into the problem to determine how hard the problem is. Once they know how much the other guy will need to commit, they know how much they can safely back off their investment. We are now entering this phase...
So true. At the same time, anyone just need 1 genius to solve a problem no other has to just go over the problem and succeed. Science and results are a weird thing.
I can't believe that interpretation of quantum mechanics can be correct. You can't make an observation of state of a particle or proton-electron conglomeration without bombarding it with light, and you can't bombard it with light without effecting it's state. Grumble... grumble...
I'd throw the so-called "hot-carrier solar cells" into the mix, but thankfully those have not become a mainstream topic. They just remain a bane in my research corner, and the solar cell manufacturers do not even know what a hot carrier is. In short, the idea is to create solar cells that are close to 80% efficient by harnessing photogenerated charge carriers before they release their excess energy as heat, but even the basic concept idea for a functioning device makes no sense and no such thing was ever built, so the hype train never took off it's niche research corner.
Sabine they did the breakthrough. At one point even blue led was deemed impossible but here we are . AI and quantum computing are coming , we just need to accept it & adapt to it
QIS researcher here: spin qubits struggle with charge noise. Much like many tech issues, the physics are figured out and its more of a materials science and engineering problem
@peterhumphreys9201 that's what I'm researching actually. There is a thermodynamic minimum to how many noise sources there can be. I'm trying to determine whether that lower bound is acceptable in a certain design
An old technician here , even if the quantum chip performs very well it can only be used for specific calculations that involve a small data set, the quantum chip obviously is riding on top of classical motherboards and hard drives so the quantum chip can not spray too much data or the rest of the structure will be overloaded. So only certain problems can be assigned.
@@thedevilneveraskstwice7027 Ok it is ok I want YOU to calmly explain computer hardware to me. EVERYTHING can not be quantum in a quantum computer. They too expensive to make. So explain to me how a quantum computer can pump large amount of data FAST. NO , it is small data sets. Immediately they idientified DECRYPTION and MOLECULE simulation for quatum chips. You can PACK that into a quantum chip and RUN. But IF the chip WALKs through large amount of data or SPRAY data it is NOT the quantum chip ANYMORE .... it is the structure of the rest of system. And it is CLASSICAL tech.
The Vatican BOUGHT secure transmission from som company who use quantum entanglement to detect if anybody is peeking in. That some company had a professor as front figure so they believe it is all true. But that is all they can do, detect it. I do not think Priests are experts in procurement. IF they detect someone listening they can ABORT the transmission in a millisecond. But it is all they can do. There is no way they can continue with a unbraekable transmission.
@@thedevilneveraskstwice7027 Actually he/she does. I just mentioned it above, but there are things QC does well, and things it does not. And the biggest issue is whether the things it does will will provide significant benefit to humanity. More to the point, enough benefit to justify the investment and the ENORMOUS energy requirement.
Im going to teach my dog to read books. Step one is clearly to have hin turn the pages in the book. He can do this most of the time. Step 2 is to find someone who will give me a billion dollars. Im stuck on step two 😢
Have you considered teaching your dog how to read books about the racist effects of global warming and how his life will be better if he stopped owning things and paid more taxes? Lots of funding there.
It seems that this video didn't age well. Just 1-2 months later all the quantum companies' stock has shot way up! Rigitti (RGTI) was at $0.95 when this video was released (17OCT24) and today (15DEC24) it's up to $7.11, that's a 7X! QBTS, QUBT, ARQQ, IONQ etc have all 3X to 5X and more! Embarrassing!
QC is already being commercially used by a number of pharmaceutical companies to aide in the development/understanding of future drugs for medical use. But, the relatively small number of Q-bits (i.e., ~ 1,000) in QC systems, today, is still a limitation to realizing its full potential. But QC has some commercial application today. As far as being able to unencrypted things, it’s my understanding that significantly more Q-bits than 1,000, will be needed to attack today’s encryption. Getting to 10,000, 100,000 or 1 million Q-bits will be a daunting and expensive effort that will take decades. But that problem set is of greater interest to the Federal Gov. Whether it’s worth the investment will depend on who you ask……much like manned exploration of our solar system…is it worth the 100’s of billions of tax payers $ spent over the last 4-5 decades? What’s been the return on investment into manned spaced exploration? Unmanned probes/satellites to study the weather, or the environment…I get. But manned exploration, without some major propulsion revolution, IMO, is nothing more than a chest-thumping/bragging exercise.
I think the main issue is demand. The reality seems to be that the number of applications that need quantum supremacy level power is currently unclear. Applications that will use thousands of 5,000+ qubit power is just not currently known. People who talk about Quantum Laptops don’t know much about the technical challenges in all the competing implementations and the lack of need for that level of computational power for applications other than password breaking (Ie, likely illegal) uses.
If anyone can make error correction work well enough that scaling up can be done, the NSA will pay however much it costs to build and run a quantum computer capable of decrypting at least the important bits from all the stored encrypted information they have been stockpiling for years.
@@buhmand That is not how that works, that is not how any of it works. A quantum computer would be finding an encryption key, not a password, and since the copy of the message you are trying to decrypt is on your own computer you would have all the attempts you wanted. Except that doing a quantum decryption would be the equivalent of trying every single key in one pass, so any kind of delay wouldn't matter anyways. If someone with a quantum computer was trying to break a password, they would copy the encrypted message sent when that password was used to log on. Then they would decrypt the password on the quantum computer and then use it to log on in a single try. If the people with the quantum computer haven't managed to copy an encrypted version of the password, the quantum computer would add nothing.
@SabineHossenfelder, at min 1:00 you say "In the new roadmap IBM has simply dropped those plans", but the Innovation roadmap that you have on the screen (right below the Development roadmap you point with the arrow) you see that Kookaburra (4000+qubits) is still there, same year. No one dropped anything
Some years ago I came across a soviet book called "Stochastic calculating devices". It was about that now called quantum computers. But it seems to me that its name is describing the point much clearer. Without this commercial flair of magic.
So, your decision to ignore IonQ ? Should that be interpreted as you do not feel their technology is competitive? Or you failed to do a proper survey of the participants in the field ?
I am old and cynical: Q-computing looks/feels/smells like String Theory. By that I mean to say that both endeavors hold great promise (among the Faithful) yet are beset with that ancient curse of "we can't make it work and we don't know why"
I predict this video will not age well. At a minimum, the NSA is going to throw stupid amounts of money at this problem as well as the Chinese government, to crack decades of archives of things that were public key encrypted by using shores algorithm. We know there are quantum chemistry computations that these systems are good for and they can solve tremendously important problems for 100 billion dollar organizations like pharmaceutical companies. The price certainly will collapse following a trajectory like Moore's law just as it did with the semiconductors and DNA sequencing. There were very good and sensible arguments that happened in the late 1940s and early 1950s predicting that the whole country would have a need for not more than a half dozen digital computers. Then the US census bureau ordered five for the census, economies of scale and technological improvements took off. Bell labs made the first practical transistor and then somebody, it's still a matter of debate, worked out the first photo lithography integrated circuits and the rest is history.
Baloney What can quantum "computers" do that normal can't? Nothing. Theoretically slightly better is not better. Now if they were EMP proof THEN the military would be interested. Until then--> NO
Sir, you should invest your personal fortune in this technology and tell us about it when you score it big. Of course, in all probability, that will never happen. But hey, give it a shot.
@@jeffwads it's part of the reason why I do have money in Google and IBM, unfortunately there is no good way to directly invest in this technology as part of a diversified portfolio.
I've actually got my quantum computer working, made up of old entangled USB cables soaking in a beer cooler, and the error correction is fantastic. No matter the problem entered, the solution is always, for some strange reason, 42. According to my estimation, that answer may be right or wrong, or both at the same time.
What is the only arithmetic constant? What are the only natural numbers x and y, that for every hyperoperation level (meaning for addition, multiplication, etc.), xx=y?
How much did the first mechanical computers cost compared to the later used naval calculators? How much did the first electronic computers cost compared to the laptop you use today? I am not sure if I see a trend but a 100B doesn't seem excessive
As someone who works with cryptography, I'm very interested in how this field progresses. Organizations, like NIST, have been putting tremendous effort into coming up with cryptographic algorithms that are resilient against larger quantum computers, having to basically assume that a practical quantum computer isn't very far away. The problem is that, so far, all of these algorithms are horrendously inefficient, using much more memory, larger keys, and are much slower. They will be needed if quantum computers do become real, however.
And in the meantime your industry can spend millions on developing security against threats that aren’t actually there. I understand that I’ll be grateful for that if QC becomes a reality, but at what expense? What existing security threats are being ignored whilst cryptographers are tilting their algorithms at QC windmills?
@@MrPoopyButtHole-yo8zo It kind of depends on what you mean by "successful" though. The post-quantum algorithms are currently usable, but have many drawbacks compared to the existing used algorithms. Generally, the keys and signatures are significantly larger, and a lot of the algorithms allow a given key to only be used a certain number of times. A lot of current use of cryptography wouldn't work nearly well with those constraints, and we'd have to re-consider what it was for. Realistically, even if quantum computers are able to break keys, it is likely that it can only be done with very expensive equipment, and more casual use of cryptography could be perfectly safe. It would only make sense to use the PQC algorithms when an attack from a large company, or a country are considerations. At least for a little while. Hopefully, it would give us enough time to transition.
i’m double majoring in engineering physics and computer engineering currently and I’ve been wanting to get into this line of work since I started college about 3 years ago, and now it looks like I might have to work towards something else now 😭
Error correction might just be the unsung hero of quantum computing’s future. It’s not glamorous, but without it, scaling won’t solve much. Google’s progress feels like a small but vital step.
Echoing Michel dyakonov words... No amount of error correction will be able to solve quantum computing. A qubit is a superposition with a continuous set of coefficients (parameters) that must be controlled precisely to get the state you want. As you increase the number of qubits as 2^N, even the number of parameters increase like that. The result is a enormous number of parameters that must be controlled even for a low number of qubits (50). Which is basically an unsolvable engineering issue. The other, but not less important issue, is with theory itself. We cant precisely control even the state of ONE qubit. That's because of Heisenberg uncertainty principle. No amount of error correction can account for this, and it's well known that without error correction a QC is impossible.
Parity is exponential, this is why from day one I said quantum computing would never outperform regular binary silicon gate computing. There are however some notable exceptions in the cryptography/communication sector where the massive overhead can be ignored in order to transmit a symmetric encryption key to a military satellite for example.
She is the most pessimistic person on the internet about technological innovation. Dismisses AI, hates Crypto, hates Quantum, dismisses Homoorphic computing , ZKP’s … the list goes on. Yes early technologies require lots of energy and requires lots of failures and iterations and lots of funding. This doesn’t make them bad or failed projects
As an Aussie studying physics in Brisbane, PsiQuantum is honestly very exciting. Yes they're an American company, but most of the founders are Aussies, and UQ has been a huge centre for quantum information theory over the past few decades. A lot of important algorithms for especially photonic quantum computing have come out of here (shoutout to Gerard Milburn!), and hearing the company actually talking about their plans, it's seeming very promising, especially with these new developments in fusion gates
I will be forever grateful to you, you changed my whole life and I will continue to preach on your behalf for the whole world to hear that you saved me from huge financial debt with just a small Investment, thank you Jihan Wu you're such a life saver
I'm favoured, 90K every week! I can now give back to the locals in my communities and also support the church. God bless America,, thank you Mr Jihan Wu😊🎉
Most rich people stay rich by spending like the poor and investing without stopping then most poor people stay poor by spending like the rich yet not investing like the rich but impressing them. People prefer to spend money on liabilities, Rather than investing in assets and be very profitable
Sounds about right, but ... (1) I expect advances in AI to help with this. (2) We have empirically been spectacularly successful with technology improvement. Modern silicon is breathtakingly advanced compared to where it started.
seems to be economicaly related : Zapata AI, one of the pioneering startups in the quantum software market, has ceased operations as of October 9, 2024. The sudden terminations appears to have been precipitated by an acceleration of payment of about $2.5 million that the company owed to Sandia Investment Management LP. Originally, this payment was not due until a Valuation Date of March 28, 2026, but the company received notice from Sandia that this date had been accelerated to October 8, 2024. So the company had to shut down and terminate almost all of the employees except for a handful that will be needed for a short time to finalize the termination activities. This event is especially surprising because Zapata had just announced a new partnership with MAG Aerospace on October 1, 2024.
AI’s always have a nice strategy to present for trade, but I haven’t seen any trade strategy as good as that of Shanita Creswell, she absolutely made a fortune out of the little amount I started trading with and she was the best teacher and mentor I’ve ever met all my period of trading
Trading systems allow you to limit the factor of emotional influence on decision-making, as well as to give the trade a certain degree of systemic character.
The best course of action if you lack market knowledge is to ask a consultant or investing coach for guidance or assistance. Speaking with a consultant helped me stay afloat in the market and grow my portfolio to about 65% since January, even though I know it sounds obvious or generic. I believe that is the most effective way to enter the business at the moment.
$100 billion is not a lot of money for some governments. It depends on the payoff, but breaking current encryption methods is a goal they are certainly interested in.
Great example of an academic with a blind spot. Dead wrong because you don’t consider geopolitics. US has been using QC to break encryption for 5+ years. China has recently announced they are doing the same. And NIST is flashing that everyone should move to post-quantum encryption as soon as possible. Even the CHIPS act was about limiting the tech that helps make QC to China, buried in normal semiconductor advancement. Consider the whole problem.
Top of the short list I can think of is Cryptography. Obviously everything quantum costs a fortune, but if that cost is spread out across hundreds of millions of users it could be economical for google or IBM or someone to market quantum cryptography-powered computer security protocol for safe(r) online transactions. I think this is most likely because its not actually all that difficult when compared to other idealized uses, and it would be marketable to a massive amount of customers. Last I checked quantum computers are still doing middle school math, so it may still be awhile.
Encryption breaking. There's very little that governments and other bad actors won't pay to be able to break into all those encrypted files they have archived.
This reminds me of a short my 14 year old son sent me. "As a knight, it is your duty to slay dragons," said the king. "Very well, my liege, may I ask why?" Said the knight. "Because they hoard wealth, and people are afraid of their capricious moods," said the king. "Very well," said the knight, drawing his sword.
A hundred billion is nothing if or when quantum computing becomes a commercial reality. If that sum is the number to get us there, then quantum computing is a certain sure bet.
Wrong. Eventually AI will run on quantum computers, and only then will it become conscious (Orch OR theory). We are just at the beginning stages of quantum computing, like machine learning a decade or two ago. Net positive fusion though can only happen in stars, and we are chasing a ghost goose.
As a layperson, I have a question that you might be able to comment on. Particles can supposedly spontaneously appear in empty space. What does this tell us about the nature of space and the nature of particles? Are particles just some kind of twisted-up space? Thanks in advance.
@@thefigmaster3519 it doesn't matter when the majority of qubits are errors. I'm saying that it won't ever be stable enough to gain an advantage. It's most likely going to require several tries per cycle to get all the qubits stable. And it would still always require some level of error correction after computing. Plus I'm like 30% sure quantum computing won't become an actual thing except for a few novelty systems. Because as far as I can find the only software running on actual quantum hardware is just strings of random numbers.
@@DudeManDude-ot5fv The problem is they try to treat an analog system like it is digital. Noise/error/uncertainty is a feature of analog that makes analog analog.
@@DudeManDude-ot5fv Existing QC platforms are steadily approaching error thresholds at which error correction can be mathematically proven to have polynomial overhead. . .
Are you saying that companies should stop trying and that Quantum computing is a concept that will never work?! I am don't really understand this subject that's very far from my field. I sometimes invest in companies that look to do well, IONQ research brought me here. Apparently, there are making some good progress and that next year there will release a new version with less errors that can be used to generate revenue... 🤔 does this sounds like wishful thinking? or is there a possibility.
Global Warming is not the issue politicians claim. Earth is a closed-loop system. Nothing arrives or leaves (except helium). Carbon dioxide entrapped in "fossil fuels" was once not trapped. A cursory look at the science shows 280ppm trapped in the oldest ice on earth, at the time the planet froze over and 90% of land dwelling mammals went extinct (this was only 10,000-30,000ya). We are only just out of this wretched cold period. And humanity barely survived. In addition to increased solar activity, the planet gained 100ppm on its own in a short time before the industrial revolution. It has since gained another 50-80ppm in only 150-200 years. This is certainly man made. But to say this is going to lead to death on the planet is pure religious fantasy. All of the coal and oil is plant matter. And all of that plant matter came from photosynthesis. Carbon in the atmosphere used to be far, far higher. When it was 2,200ppm lizards grew 20ft tall. Mushrooms 2m in diameter. Trees were often twice as tall as they are now. When the carbon content was 8,000ppm (20x current) we had the Cambrian explosion. A time when not only more new species evolved, but entirely new branches of the evolutionary chain developed. As to these cataclysimcal tripocal storms everyone is afraid of, there is an upper limit to storm strength and this is barometric pressure. This is a function of atmospheric density, and this will not change appreciably. To generate strong einds there must be a pressure differential, and this dofferential is finite and already limits the maximum storm strength possible anywhere on earth. Adding heat only increases the frequency, or probability, that any given storm might be stronger than otherwise. As to the overall ideology: all living things are carbon based. To say carbon will ruin earth or destroy life on earth is pure anti-science, anti-reason, insanity.
Global Warming is not the issue politicians claim. Earth is a closed-loop system. Nothing arrives or leaves (except helium). Carbon dioxide that is entrapped in "fossil fuels" was once not trapped. It was in the atmosphere. A cursory look at the science shows 280ppm carbon content trapped in the oldest ice on earth, at the time the planet froze over and 90% of land dwelling mammals went extinct (this was as recent as 10,000-30,000ya). We are only just out of this wretched cold period. And humanity barely survived. In addition to increased solar activity, the planet also gained 100ppm CO2 on its own in a short time before the industrial revolution. It has since gained another 50-80ppm in only 150-200 years. Most of which in the last 50 years. This is certainly man made. And burning fossil fuels is clearly releasing this carbon. But to say this is going to lead to death on the planet is pure religious fantasy. All of the coal and oil is plant matter. Decomposed in an anaerobic environment. All of that plant matter came from photosynthesis. Carbon in the atmosphere used to be far, far higher. And plants absorbed it, converted it, got buried in landslides and river bottoms, and trapped it. Before, when atmospheric carbon was 2,200ppm, lizards grew well over 20ft tall. Mushrooms 2m in diameter. Trees were often twice as tall as they are now. On average. When the carbon content was 8,000ppm (20x current) this facilitated the Cambrian explosion. A time when not only more new species evolved, but entirely new branches of the evolutionary chain developed. And we have never seen this abundant creative evolution since. As to these cataclysimcal tripocal storms everyone is afraid of, there is an upper limit to storm strength and this is barometric pressure. This is a function of atmospheric density, which is gas molecular weight, times height. And this will not change appreciably. To generate strong winds there must be a large pressure differential, and this differential is finite, and already limits the maximum storm strength possible anywhere on earth. Adding heat only increases the frequency, or probability, that any given storm might be stronger than otherwise. But they cannot become some sort of super storm the world has never seen. Because this defies not only science. But physics as well. (The latter is apparently held to a higher standard of truth). As to the overall ideology of catastrophe from global warming due to mankind's release of ancient carbon stores: All living things are carbon based. To say carbon will ruin earth or destroy life on earth is pure anti-science, anti-reason, insanity.
Looks like we went from "The Quantum Winter is coming" 2 years ago to "The quantum hype bubble is about to burst" a year ago and currently at "The quantum computing collapse has begun".
how do you get logical output from qbits? doesn't our whole basis of computing function on logic gates built from true false networks of transistors? if you made all those true and false both at any time or some point in the middle doesn't that make how we make programs and process data not work? It seems like every qbit is a error and how do you even know what state to use and do this so it does anything more then revert to working exactly like transistor based logic gates...
An administration to administer an administration of administers...isn't that how government works? We could replace everyone with Quantum Computers. 😅
Radically decentralized Byzantine fault tolerant massively parallel computing (called also "crypto" and "blockchain" ) is quantum computing in that sense.
Given that quantum computing is hyped as a better, faster way to solve a limited class of computational problems, the epitaph for quantum computing may go like this: "IT WAS A $100B SOLUTION FOR A $10B PROBLEM."
Personally, this Sabine's take on this seems alarmist and sensationalist. The very first product I see is probably already attainable; a quantum dongle for encryption. And that could protect the world's economy [somewhat] from other emerging quantum (and classical) evolution.
A dongle? Like something you would carry with you in your pocket? You realize that the current devices require temperatures close to absolute 0 to operate and are meters in size? And cost tens of millions of dollars to build?
@@VladimirNicolici You have limited vision, but sure. You do recall that mainframes used to fill entire rooms, right? I presented a simple and probably achievable use case that would justify the entire investment and industry. You thought a flex was in order.
@@PrometheanConsulting You said "probably already attainable". Which to me means something like this year or next year. You know how long it took from "mainframes" that fill entire rooms to having a computer (smart phone) in our pockets? Roughly 60 years, from around 1940 to 2000. I would be very surprised to see a quantum computer, of any complexity, in the average home 20 years from now, let alone in my pocket. It's not about "flexing", it's just that in my opinion a "dongle" would be one of the least feasible practical applications of QC in the short term. And I couldn't see how you thought otherwise. I still can't.
Remember that the phone that sits in your pocket now is stronger than the early generation computers, which were the size of entire rooms. QC will probably reach viability someday... But not anytime this decade, I think. It should be viewed as an investment in the RnD of an emergent tech in it's infancy, not something that will return your investment next year.
Yeah, I'm starting to feel like this channel is going downhill. Recently every single topic has been doomer "it will NEVER happen" takes ("man will never fly in a million years"), and often these takes are about subjects that Sabine has no qualifications for. There's a difference between skepticism and sensationalist nay-saying for clicks.
@@thebloatedwalrusman6415 "sensationalist nay-saying for clicks." - that was a good one. You just characterized 99.9% of videos on TH-cam. This channel makes no exception.
Remember the videos about topics about 1-2 years ago? Yes, me too barely. Since the "Science News" category started, it has taken over nearly all the channel, and we get a bit of commentary, often shallow, that is sometimes interesting. But looking into things for real, looking at experiments or aspects in physics, explaining as deep as it is possible - you know, a real science education channel, that's long ago. Thanks for the heads up, because I needed that wakeup call, to reflect what Sabine does nowadays. I have to ask myself the question, if just some commentary on science news is enough for me. Otherwise I might unsubscribe to look for other places. The reason I came for here, isn't there anymore.
This is exactly what people thought before electricity, before industrial revolution, before atomic bomb, before genetic engineering, before LHC, before reusable rockets, before any technological advance. In the comments people laugh about a 30 years span for a major technological breakthrough, this time frame is nothing compared to nature's time, come on people: we are trying to make the sun in our backyards, we are trying to harness the power of the quantum world, even 200 hundred years are a very short time to achieve this huge milestones, we are trying to emulate and control nature!!! The problem is everything now in the world moves in capitalism terms, we may be deprived of having this huge accomplishments just because a couple of fat, greedy billionaire investors are going to loose 5% of their wealth and they won't be able to buy another yacht. We as society have let that happen. So i hope we reach that milestones even if them would only be achieved when society changes or adapts it's current socioeconomic system.
Your information about existing quantum computer architectures is very limited and wrong For example, Google had tunable qubits while IBM has fixed frequency qubits. That’s why IBM scaled to 1000 qubits so fast. But it’s extremely worse in terms of error. So IBM probably gave up and will turn to a Google like architecture. Quantum computing will not die soon, because it’s unique and only way to improve computation exponentially and part of the larger flow of quantum technologies. With almost certainty, quantum computers will be part of the future. Unless, you prove BBP is equal to BQP and give an algorithm to convert algorithms from BQP to BBP
The irony is that $100B is what some companies are currently looking to pour into the next generation of LLMs... Personally feel that in the long term a functioning quantum computer would be a better investment, but the hype shoe is currently on the other foot.
Yeah, it's debatable how much more LLMs can be improved and if it's worth the costs. They seem to scale well with giving them a lot of good training data, but that's not an unlimited resource. The Internet is getting more and more polluted by their output so it's harder and harder to get clean training data. But, while LLMs are clearly overhyped too, and despite their many problems, they are quite useful, even for regular people, even today. Quantum computing makes a lot of promises for the future, and while it will no doubt be useful for science, I think it's not likely to have the same impact in day to day life as LLMs currently do. There is also talk about combining AI with quantum computing, but I'm a bit skeptical about that. But I've been wrong before, so we'll see.
Definetly. On the more speculative side I remember when the dwave website bragged about really weird stuff like claiming to be reaching into another dimension of existance to extract data, which kind of makes sense when you are isolating a particle at such a low energy point it would be more open to other influence. Also sounds like they just let the electrons spit out information and see what it says, which is weird.
@ZAWARUD00 not quite...the initial research - is qbit computing possible - was completed some time back. This is application and therein lies my concern. The bandwagon was never going to match reality in that qbit computing requires extreme physical conditions to work. That was never going to scale to extensive commercial use.
Sabine. A question for you if I can ask it? Analogue computers were all the rage until the speed of digital computers overtook them. Note all this money being pumped into getting something that can hold a varying state seems like a lot. Would it be more economically viable to increase the performance of operational amplifiers instead?
Just after we finished this video, news broke that the quantum computing startup Zapata ceased operation:
quantumcomputingreport.com/zapata-ai-ceases-operations/
jeez you're on it quicker than maple syrup on pancakes
I don't think, we have the most promising ideas, or enough diversity in ideas, outside the main ideas.
So they got Zap-ped...
Quantum algorithms take partial measurements labelled as 1 guess and IBM fail to mention this in their card game demo.
So...quantum computing is promising until someone makes an observation of a start-up's financial state and then it all collapses.
Maybe if people hadn’t looked at quantum computing it wouldn’t have collapsed.
I see what you did there XD
It wasn't me.
Yeah, it could have been in a super position of both collapsing and going to the moon
Lol
Are you sure about that?
Quantum computing will become financially feasible right after nuclear fusion becomes profitable in about 21 years or so.
Umm, no, see IONQ
Fusion? Just 30 years away!
You're so wrong my text book from the 1970s says fusion is only 15 years away.
It doesn't need to be financially feasible. There are many exobytes (that's millions of terabytes) of traffic being saved right now in huge datacenters, which includes your traffic, only waiting until they can be easily cracked and all our data and actions decrypted and recorded.
Your conversations, banking info, searches, þorn preferences, health and fitness data, you name it. All waiting its time of day to be fully accessible.
There is no profit in this only because because this information is priceless
@@thomaslink2685 Correct It is 30 years not this 21 year nonsense!
Did you hear the one about the quantum computer IT support guy? Whenever you called in for help, he always said 'Have you tried turning it on and off again at the same time?'
Schrodinger's cat is gonna do it for them. Dead or alive. 🙀
Now THAT brings back a few memories ! 🙂
Incroyable.
Quantum computing super position.
He’s the worst bunch of dumb options, turn on then off or off then on or turn on and off that the same time, wtf at the same time! 😳
Hi Sabine, computer scientist here who's worked on this stuff. While I agree with you that a lot of caution and a lot less hype is the need of the hour, I would like to highlight that quantum information science in general isn't just quantum computing. QC has a far less famous yet far more successful cousin, quantum communication and metrology, which has seen feasible and practical applications many times over. The BB84 protocol is a great example. While it pains me to see all funding go towards building a QC, with every Tom, Dick and Harry trying to get on the gravy train, maybe you could consider talking about the other more successful aspects of this area of research?
All quantum imitation, no computing?
You may be right here, but who is working on quantum-enabled communications? I'll look up BB84 but would appreciate any other pointers to interesting uses.
Quantum Communication? Great! We can finally talk with aliens!
I'm a physicist, so I'll say I understand quantum at least a little bit. My problem is that I have never felt that I truly understood what it would mean to do a quantum calculation or have a "quantum program" or, similarly, to list what types of problems are amenable to quantum computation. Admittedly, I've put close to no effort into this, but when I've bumped into people and asked them to explain it to me, I've never gotten an answer. Another way to say this is that I have no sense of far the gap is between what people can do today and what is needed to do something useful.
This is all background to ask if you can point me to something brief to read that will help me understand these questions? Do you know of anything? Some sort of QC primer for someone who knows QM already and wants to answer the questions I just posed (or be redirected constructively if those are gibberish questions).
@aidancollins1591 Thank you. These sound like excellent resources. I'll have a look. I've had people wave their hands and say things like qubits moving through gates is really superpositions moving through gates which is like parallel processing, but I've never understood how that hand waving turns into a real calculation, how the multiplicity gets high enough to matter, and a multitude of other questions. I'll go have a look at the things you mentioned. Sorry if I just typed gibberish.
Years ago IBM embraced "financial capitalism" and proceeded to shut down R&D, product development, and manufacturing plants. They are now a husk of their former selves. I used to work there but cannot tell you what they do these days (cloud solutions???). It's a sad tale but typical of many former kings of industry.
I have been wondering what IBM actually do these days.. They don't seem to make anything.
In high school I was in the Explorers Club and went to our weekly meetings at the huge RCA building .
50 years later and RCA is just dust in the wind...
@@PaulaXism Right. They are consultants right now, so actual results would be inconvenient.
@@PaulaXism Military project are not publicly discussed
@@PaulaXism They still ride on leasing mainframes. And yes there is still a market for them, they have some advantages over racks of commodity servers.
I am a Physicist and I talked to really highly regarded people actually doing quantum computing (they have a d wave machine) and my understanding is that setting it up takes a long long time and it will never be a general use computer but there is still funding in it. I think if it will be able to o one thing and one thing only, breaking encrypting it is already worth it for the (US) government.
The only problem with Quantum Computing are the investors that somehow constantly fall for the random startup, that promises random BS if you just give them a few million of moneys. Those startups love to make a lot of noise to get that money, and the average journalist then blindly copies that noise to turn it into a headline, that then forces Sabine to make a new video about why that was total BS.
That's the magic of the Citadel led US economy where hype farming for immediate profit is the only goal. Similar to AI, where it's a few companies among millions doing the innovation, rest are getting massive funding to publish ChatGPT wrappers and to hire AI consultants from Mckinsey. European market seems less inclined to do it, but investors are having a FOMO missing out on the hype money and are trying to convince people that this results in less innovation. Happened with crypto, happening with AI, will happen with Quantum computing when you'll see LinkedIn finance bros pretending to understand what superposition is.
Andretti (motorracing) fell for it, it has costed him the ownership of his own company.
Thing is, with current interest rates, if you have billions under management throwing a few million at blue sky is more rational than spread betting on horse races, since there is at least a chance one blue sky project either comes good, or the share price goes up due to irrational exuberance and you get out with a profit.
People are making money on shares like Trump Media by paying close attention to the election polls, even though eventually it will trade below $1.
When I saw today's subject, I remarked to my wife, "Sabine called it!"
Investors pay top dollars for Powerpoint presentations. So better brush your PP skills.
I do my Masters Degree in QUantum Computing and it's complicated. Not the field itself. The stabilizing part. If you are inside a saltmine 3km below the surface of the earth, you get astonishing results and low error. But as long as freaking backgroundradiation can cause decoherence we have problems with the "quantumness" of our qubits.
I am thinking of doing my masters next year in Quantum computing and quantum information because it seems interesting but I'm afraid if it is the best option because I do not intend to pursue a PhD and the industry for it seems to be small, very risky and competitive. What is you experience in the master's degree?
@@actualBIAS so what's the problem? Sit in that salt mine
So the background radiation is essentially an 'observer' or 'measurement' that collapses the waveform?
@@andregomes2476 But isn't quantum metrology a thriving field? And aren't the knowledge/skills transferable?
If they're so useful, then why aren't salt mines simply where quantum supercomputers are located?
Here after google just cracked a quantum computing challenge with new chip
same lol
i really do not trust sabine at all. havent watched her much but her negative take on AI which im more educated on seemed unfounded and after being recommended this video now after the breakthrough did put a smile on my face lol. she just doesnt seem to really go in as much detail as someone reporting on the matter should, maybe in the other topics she is well-versed but her just blindly yapping at times has made me lose full trust in her opinion
@homeyworkey Facts: She seems to just hate it, and her channel seems to be hating on new technology like AI. It's really sad to see.
@@SpeedRunsIRLboomer steps out if line to talk about stuff she knows jack shit about, and she acts like shes a expert because she knows alot about other stuff
I find her channel interesting only because it deftly mixes science with opinion 😏
I used to work for IBM. Can confirm, they gave up years ago, almost across the board. We joked our division was bankrolling the rest of IBMs pet projects, this included, since we were very profitable at the time.
I left, but not long after layoffs hit that division to keep their pie in the sky projects running. Lots of good people out of work for huff and puff investors
Ive just been offered a role at IBM, can you tell me abit about what to expect?
@@bdcopp Nice, warm, soft deliciousness.
@@bdcopp Depends heavily on what department. Generally colleagues are nice to work with and knowledgeable especially at R&D campuses. Management is a mixed bag but fine as far as large companies go.
@@bdcopp what is your field of expertise or profession?
What did you do there? photonics seem better
The frontiers of the field aren't where they were even just a couple years ago. I really don't expect anything to fall apart, unless some external pressure forces it to. Getting a commercially viable product isn't an immediate goal, and never has been, so any change isn't likely to be based on the outlook of such.
Common sense. Whoa lol. This seems to be the case for almost every new sector in the world. At first it sucks, then it gets better. Then it seems “dead”. Then someone finds a way to get stuff done. Then people want it.
“Auto carriages are a folly. There’s certainly more grass than gas” - unremarkable dead person from early 20th century.
Back in the day, while I was a Nuclear Engineering graduate student in 1977, there was a lot of talk about how “Nuclear fusion was just around the corner”. Millions were being poured into it. I remember thinking that the Industry should focus on investing in small fission reactors instead, and build a highly reliable platform that can be replicated with good results in many places. But who wants to listen to a poor graduate student? The rich win, always! Arrogance still knows no bounds in the Abrahamic world!
I see Quantum Computing as the next big debacle - Sabine you have correctly called it out - they will never get the error rates down. Don’t be misled by IBM and Google’s pronouncements. They are always chasing high profit margin dreams! 😂
The Money-Wave function collapses when Quantum Computers becomes entangled with reality... Even with error correcting being taken into consideration.
+
I think when they get error correction, they'll close shop. Daisy, Daisy.
AI will follow this quantum hype train derail
lmao
🥰🤑🫡🤔🫣🙈🙉🙊💥💥💥🤓🙃🙃🙃
Quantim computing investor pitch meetings must be like physics panels where Dr. Michio Kaku talks about all the "evidence" for string theory coming out "every day." Reminds me of used car salesmen, but without the keen fashion sense.
That’s because Dr. Kaku worked many many years behind writing string theory and you never give up your vested interest even if you’re wrong in the Academics world. Just look at Archeology, evidence for humans in N. America over 300,000 years ago and Universities are fuming 😡 over losing their funding from Ten Year PhD’s who spent their life trying to convince you people came to the Americas only since 10,000 years ago. Dogma.
Sabine isn't much better than Kaku when it comes to that stuff
@jaredf6205 These are all people who would have said that combustion engines wouldn't go anywhere when they were invented. Given time, almost every scientist is proven to be extremely biased or incompetent.
@@CarlosSpicyWangThis is the complete opposite of reality. Scientists do research, peer review other's work, and try and falsify their own. It's the ignorant like yourself that discount research performed by more capable minds - like the research that went into the combustion engine.
It's where all the guys from Enron ended up.
Can you please update the video Since google said they had a new breakthrough this week?
Ha ha …. So you think that Google’s announcement changes anything?😂
@@knaraya936 Ionq, Riggeti and Quantum have gone up 200% sice she posted this video hahahahahahahahahahaha
@MrLomachenko16 i have 5 shares in each rig and wave. Let's gooooo
Expensive refrigerators with a badly functioning calculator attached.
Lol
At least it sounds cool
Quantum computing was a juvenile dream anyway
Not even a calculator TBH, a random number generating machine masquerading as a calculator
Refrigeration was really something when it was a candle and ammonia
Years and years ago, I was asking questions about how quantum computing could ever deliver a viable product if for adding more qubits the operating temperature must drop significantly. It seemed like an exponentially difficult problem. I was told that I didn't understood it properly. Maybe I don't, but I got the smell right.
Temperature is near absolute zero. But the requirements on the environment to not interfere is insane.... This technology(if you may call it that) is a new field in physics where there are far more questions than answers at the moment.
There are sound reasons to suspect it is an exponentially difficult problem. Achieving the necessary level of stability for N + 1 qubits could easily be M times as hard as getting N qubits in the right state. Maybe M = 1.5. Or maybe M is 2. Or 10.
Regardless the road from 50 qubits to 100 qubits in a useful state could be a very very long road.
If you dont have time, here is some summary:
(00:00) The speaker predicted the hype around quantum computing would peak and falter in 2024, but now believes the situation will remain uncertain.
(00:23) IBM presented a 1000+ qubit quantum chip with little performance details and quietly revised their ambitious roadmap to focus on error correction.
(01:32) Quantum computing firms D-wave and Rigetti face delisting from the NY stock exchange due to low stock prices, while PsiQuantum raises funds and faces scrutiny.
(02:20) Google made progress in error correction, demonstrating that increasing qubits can exponentially reduce errors, which is good news for IBM as well.
(04:28) The speaker estimates that building a commercially useful quantum computer could cost up to $100 billion, making further investments risky for big companies and startups.
As soon as it gets as up to as high as $100 Billion they will foist it on to taxpayers. Trust me, I'm from the gubmint.
@@alanserjeant4947 Easier and more simple to build a quantum printer of quantum money.
Why do physicists, engineers and mathematicians start from the premisse of systemic corruption to a financial system based mathematically on a mathematically absurd Ponzi algorithm?
One factor overlooked about investment is the government(s) this has encryption/decryption potential and thus is a national security issue. It's kind of like nuclear research was post WW2 that came with massive physics funding. The US government (NSA) has a very large black budget and lots of cash to spread around for R&D, so does China.
yeah, if anyone is going to build a QC its going to be NSA
Obviously not, but they would be fed information from the newfound lack of security @@ikrenji8125
My guess is that the big companies aren't really interested in quantum computing, they are just interested in ensuring that they get there before any of their competitors.
They only need to put enough money/effort into the problem to determine how hard the problem is.
Once they know how much the other guy will need to commit, they know how much they can safely back off their investment.
We are now entering this phase...
Similar comments for the various National Intelligence Agencies.
Meanwhile millions starve and US veterans are sleeping under a bridge somewhere. Great society we have here.
FOMO
So true. At the same time, anyone just need 1 genius to solve a problem no other has to just go over the problem and succeed. Science and results are a weird thing.
Meanwhile China is still marching along with their quantum efforts.
just a symbolic gesture of appreciation.
It seems that for years now the quantum computers fail to deliver a real value despite the billions which are getting invested
indeed!
Already have quantum computers in our heads 😮
you can add fuel cell batteries and hydrogen fueling stations to that list.
Same as Full Self Driving.
Many failed technologies helped invent new valid technologies. So maybe the money spent was not a waste.
Oh no the quantum computer wave collapsed??? WHO PEEKED??
Heisenburg’s quantum ghost… 😂😂😂
Wasn't me
I pooped, does it count?
I can't believe that interpretation of quantum mechanics can be correct. You can't make an observation of state of a particle or proton-electron conglomeration without bombarding it with light, and you can't bombard it with light without effecting it's state. Grumble... grumble...
@@NJ-wb1cz only for the waves in the toilet bowl.
Willow says hi
😎
Race for relevance between string theory and quantum computing. Shall be fun watching from the sidelines.
Well at least we do have quantum computers that work. We don't have strings that match reality, afaik.
@@yerocamaybe we can simulate string in quantum computer 😅
And here I am, struggling to figure out why my lawn mower won't start.
@@syntaxusdogmata3333 Because your dog uses it.
I'd throw the so-called "hot-carrier solar cells" into the mix, but thankfully those have not become a mainstream topic. They just remain a bane in my research corner, and the solar cell manufacturers do not even know what a hot carrier is. In short, the idea is to create solar cells that are close to 80% efficient by harnessing photogenerated charge carriers before they release their excess energy as heat, but even the basic concept idea for a functioning device makes no sense and no such thing was ever built, so the hype train never took off it's niche research corner.
Quantum Computing Collapse - no wonder, it's all being observed and analyzed here and elsewhere
Sabine they did the breakthrough. At one point even blue led was deemed impossible but here we are . AI and quantum computing are coming , we just need to accept it & adapt to it
QIS researcher here: spin qubits struggle with charge noise. Much like many tech issues, the physics are figured out and its more of a materials science and engineering problem
But is it actually a *fixable* problem - yes or no?
@ChefStache sure) everything is "just" material science and eng. problem)
There is a reason why our brains are filled with inhibitory neurons .
Those pesky engineers. You can never trust their capabilities. /s
@peterhumphreys9201 that's what I'm researching actually. There is a thermodynamic minimum to how many noise sources there can be. I'm trying to determine whether that lower bound is acceptable in a certain design
An old technician here , even if the quantum chip performs very well it can only be used for specific calculations that involve a small data set, the quantum chip obviously is riding on top of classical motherboards and hard drives so the quantum chip can not spray too much data or the rest of the structure will be overloaded. So only certain problems can be assigned.
Interesting and underrated point!
lmao, you have zero idea about what you are trying to lie about
@@thedevilneveraskstwice7027 Ok it is ok I want YOU to calmly explain computer hardware to me. EVERYTHING can not be quantum in a quantum computer. They too expensive to make. So explain to me how a quantum computer can pump large amount of data FAST. NO , it is small data sets. Immediately they idientified DECRYPTION and MOLECULE simulation for quatum chips. You can PACK that into a quantum chip and RUN. But IF the chip WALKs through large amount of data or SPRAY data it is NOT the quantum chip ANYMORE .... it is the structure of the rest of system. And it is CLASSICAL tech.
The Vatican BOUGHT secure transmission from som company who use quantum entanglement to detect if anybody is peeking in. That some company had a professor as front figure so they believe it is all true. But that is all they can do, detect it. I do not think Priests are experts in procurement. IF they detect someone listening they can ABORT the transmission in a millisecond. But it is all they can do. There is no way they can continue with a unbraekable transmission.
@@thedevilneveraskstwice7027 Actually he/she does. I just mentioned it above, but there are things QC does well, and things it does not. And the biggest issue is whether the things it does will will provide significant benefit to humanity. More to the point, enough benefit to justify the investment and the ENORMOUS energy requirement.
my quantum holdings have literally skyrocketed since this
Right? My D-wave is up 400%, if this is what low stock prices look like can I please have more?
And know nothing finance guys are acting like we are going to have quantum Iphones in 5 years. Pump pump pump
Lol@@drkoh1840
Can’t they just call the errors “hallucinations” and sweep them under the rug? 😝
+
This is called "misfortunes" in quantum computing world.
@@ti4koThat’s stupid, they should call it “Calamity” quotes included.
Ai joke detected
spooky bitflips at low distance
Quantum stocks are rallying :)
IONQ up 250%+
QUBT up 750%
QBTS up 150%
RGTI up 65%
Seems like this video was the sign to buy quantum stocks. They have absolutely explode since this video, some 400-600 %
Can you do an update on Willow?
Im going to teach my dog to read books.
Step one is clearly to have hin turn the pages in the book.
He can do this most of the time.
Step 2 is to find someone who will give me a billion dollars.
Im stuck on step two 😢
Have you considered teaching your dog how to read books about the racist effects of global warming and how his life will be better if he stopped owning things and paid more taxes? Lots of funding there.
It seems that this video didn't age well. Just 1-2 months later all the quantum companies' stock has shot way up! Rigitti (RGTI) was at $0.95 when this video was released (17OCT24) and today (15DEC24) it's up to $7.11, that's a 7X! QBTS, QUBT, ARQQ, IONQ etc have all 3X to 5X and more! Embarrassing!
Quantum computers are waiting for fusion eletricity to power them... and guess what fusion start-ups are waiting for to help with calculations?
Hey, if AI collapses too there are a lot of prime computing sources just sitting there.
@@Starjumper2821 ai will never collapse because it was never up
@@HarryLarsson-b2n no one could think this unless head in sand
@@HarryLarsson-b2n Bro's living in a cave.
@@matt.stevick 'LLMs are overhyped and wasteful Rube-Goldberg machines. Wetware tech AI is what we should be focusing on.'
You forgot Brian and Kevin from accounting overseeing the whole administration imbroglio.
QC is already being commercially used by a number of pharmaceutical companies to aide in the development/understanding of future drugs for medical use. But, the relatively small number of Q-bits (i.e., ~ 1,000) in QC systems, today, is still a limitation to realizing its full potential. But QC has some commercial application today. As far as being able to unencrypted things, it’s my understanding that significantly more Q-bits than 1,000, will be needed to attack today’s encryption. Getting to 10,000, 100,000 or 1 million Q-bits will be a daunting and expensive effort that will take decades. But that problem set is of greater interest to the Federal Gov. Whether it’s worth the investment will depend on who you ask……much like manned exploration of our solar system…is it worth the 100’s of billions of tax payers $ spent over the last 4-5 decades? What’s been the return on investment into manned spaced exploration? Unmanned probes/satellites to study the weather, or the environment…I get. But manned exploration, without some major propulsion revolution, IMO, is nothing more than a chest-thumping/bragging exercise.
Well, that didn't age well.
I think the main issue is demand. The reality seems to be that the number of applications that need quantum supremacy level power is currently unclear. Applications that will use thousands of 5,000+ qubit power is just not currently known. People who talk about Quantum Laptops don’t know much about the technical challenges in all the competing implementations and the lack of need for that level of computational power for applications other than password breaking (Ie, likely illegal) uses.
If anyone can make error correction work well enough that scaling up can be done, the NSA will pay however much it costs to build and run a quantum computer capable of decrypting at least the important bits from all the stored encrypted information they have been stockpiling for years.
@@buhmand That is not how that works, that is not how any of it works. A quantum computer would be finding an encryption key, not a password, and since the copy of the message you are trying to decrypt is on your own computer you would have all the attempts you wanted. Except that doing a quantum decryption would be the equivalent of trying every single key in one pass, so any kind of delay wouldn't matter anyways.
If someone with a quantum computer was trying to break a password, they would copy the encrypted message sent when that password was used to log on. Then they would decrypt the password on the quantum computer and then use it to log on in a single try. If the people with the quantum computer haven't managed to copy an encrypted version of the password, the quantum computer would add nothing.
Very curious to know your thoughts on this after Google's announcement yesterday
@SabineHossenfelder, at min 1:00 you say "In the new roadmap IBM has simply dropped those plans", but the Innovation roadmap that you have on the screen (right below the Development roadmap you point with the arrow) you see that Kookaburra (4000+qubits) is still there, same year. No one dropped anything
I'm a novice on the subject, but if you zoom in on the details of the Kookaburra, it no longer mentions the additional qbits.
That very advanced quantum computer from IBM is actually called Cuckooburra.
Some years ago I came across a soviet book called "Stochastic calculating devices". It was about that now called quantum computers. But it seems to me that its name is describing the point much clearer. Without this commercial flair of magic.
Russians invented the dice.
@@Apjooz The basic principles of most of modern technologies are quite old actually.
So, your decision to ignore IonQ ? Should that be interpreted as you do not feel their technology is competitive? Or you failed to do a proper survey of the participants in the field ?
I am old and cynical: Q-computing looks/feels/smells like String Theory.
By that I mean to say that both endeavors hold great promise (among the Faithful) yet are beset with that ancient curse of "we can't make it work and we don't know why"
You obviously don't understand quantum computing and its current state.
I guess you could say they were stringing you along.
I predict this video will not age well. At a minimum, the NSA is going to throw stupid amounts of money at this problem as well as the Chinese government, to crack decades of archives of things that were public key encrypted by using shores algorithm. We know there are quantum chemistry computations that these systems are good for and they can solve tremendously important problems for 100 billion dollar organizations like pharmaceutical companies. The price certainly will collapse following a trajectory like Moore's law just as it did with the semiconductors and DNA sequencing. There were very good and sensible arguments that happened in the late 1940s and early 1950s predicting that the whole country would have a need for not more than a half dozen digital computers. Then the US census bureau ordered five for the census, economies of scale and technological improvements took off. Bell labs made the first practical transistor and then somebody, it's still a matter of debate, worked out the first photo lithography integrated circuits and the rest is history.
Could be true, could also be complete BS - that's the issue, we really can't tell/know from our current POV
Baloney What can quantum "computers" do that normal can't? Nothing. Theoretically slightly better is not better. Now if they were EMP proof THEN the military would be interested. Until then--> NO
Sir, you should invest your personal fortune in this technology and tell us about it when you score it big. Of course, in all probability, that will never happen. But hey, give it a shot.
Chinese claimed to have already cracked it or at least shown that they can with their QC.
@@jeffwads it's part of the reason why I do have money in Google and IBM, unfortunately there is no good way to directly invest in this technology as part of a diversified portfolio.
Yet again brilliant commentary, and well made research into this topic. Nice work Sabine!
All are up by well over 100% since this video was posted.
@@potheadzassociation6338 It is a hot topic in the tech science community, no doubt
What do you have against quantum computing, grandma?
The quantum computing will remain in a superposition of promising and unpromising is the most quantum statement out here. 😂
I bought IONQ at around 4$. now it is 15$, I am very confident it will double soon again...
you got it
Wake me up when a quantum computer solves a single unsolved problem.
I've actually got my quantum computer working, made up of old entangled USB cables soaking in a beer cooler, and the error correction is fantastic. No matter the problem entered, the solution is always, for some strange reason, 42. According to my estimation, that answer may be right or wrong, or both at the same time.
Now if u could just find the question...
What's the question?
@@app0ll0nysus oh BOY, if only we knew😩
What is the only arithmetic constant?
What are the only natural numbers x and y, that for every hyperoperation level (meaning for addition, multiplication, etc.),
xx=y?
I thought you were going to say the solution was beer…
How much did the first mechanical computers cost compared to the later used naval calculators? How much did the first electronic computers cost compared to the laptop you use today? I am not sure if I see a trend but a 100B doesn't seem excessive
Google just announced new quantum chip 😂 it just started 🚀
As someone who works with cryptography, I'm very interested in how this field progresses. Organizations, like NIST, have been putting tremendous effort into coming up with cryptographic algorithms that are resilient against larger quantum computers, having to basically assume that a practical quantum computer isn't very far away. The problem is that, so far, all of these algorithms are horrendously inefficient, using much more memory, larger keys, and are much slower. They will be needed if quantum computers do become real, however.
And in the meantime your industry can spend millions on developing security against threats that aren’t actually there. I understand that I’ll be grateful for that if QC becomes a reality, but at what expense? What existing security threats are being ignored whilst cryptographers are tilting their algorithms at QC windmills?
So if PQC is successful QKD isn't needed rightM
@@MrPoopyButtHole-yo8zo It kind of depends on what you mean by "successful" though. The post-quantum algorithms are currently usable, but have many drawbacks compared to the existing used algorithms. Generally, the keys and signatures are significantly larger, and a lot of the algorithms allow a given key to only be used a certain number of times. A lot of current use of cryptography wouldn't work nearly well with those constraints, and we'd have to re-consider what it was for.
Realistically, even if quantum computers are able to break keys, it is likely that it can only be done with very expensive equipment, and more casual use of cryptography could be perfectly safe. It would only make sense to use the PQC algorithms when an attack from a large company, or a country are considerations. At least for a little while. Hopefully, it would give us enough time to transition.
@@davidbrown6494 I think it is all a snake trying to eat it's own tail problem. Making the snake longer doesn't really solve the problem in the end.
I think that our new password requirements for the Christmas party potluck list sign in were meant to be resilient against quantum hacking
i’m double majoring in engineering physics and computer engineering currently and I’ve been wanting to get into this line of work since I started college about 3 years ago, and now it looks like I might have to work towards something else now 😭
Error correction might just be the unsung hero of quantum computing’s future. It’s not glamorous, but without it, scaling won’t solve much. Google’s progress feels like a small but vital step.
Echoing Michel dyakonov words... No amount of error correction will be able to solve quantum computing. A qubit is a superposition with a continuous set of coefficients (parameters) that must be controlled precisely to get the state you want. As you increase the number of qubits as 2^N, even the number of parameters increase like that. The result is a enormous number of parameters that must be controlled even for a low number of qubits (50). Which is basically an unsolvable engineering issue.
The other, but not less important issue, is with theory itself. We cant precisely control even the state of ONE qubit. That's because of Heisenberg uncertainty principle. No amount of error correction can account for this, and it's well known that without error correction a QC is impossible.
Parity is exponential, this is why from day one I said quantum computing would never outperform regular binary silicon gate computing.
There are however some notable exceptions in the cryptography/communication sector where the massive overhead can be ignored in order to transmit a symmetric encryption key to a military satellite for example.
She is the most pessimistic person on the internet about technological innovation. Dismisses AI, hates Crypto, hates Quantum, dismisses Homoorphic computing , ZKP’s … the list goes on. Yes early technologies require lots of energy and requires lots of failures and iterations and lots of funding. This doesn’t make them bad or failed projects
Ai is getting exposed as work by armies of millions of people. m.th-cam.com/video/qZS50KXjAX0/w-d-xo.html&pp=2AGfApACAQ%3D%3D
Or in short, apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
As an Aussie studying physics in Brisbane, PsiQuantum is honestly very exciting. Yes they're an American company, but most of the founders are Aussies, and UQ has been a huge centre for quantum information theory over the past few decades. A lot of important algorithms for especially photonic quantum computing have come out of here (shoutout to Gerard Milburn!), and hearing the company actually talking about their plans, it's seeming very promising, especially with these new developments in fusion gates
For a billion it should be exciting, i still have no idea how this will assist everyday Aussies!
Hit 250k today. Appreciate you for all the knowledge and nuggets you had thrown my way over the last months. Started with 24k in August 2024..,.
I would really like to know how much work you really did put in to get to this stage
I will be forever grateful to you, you changed my whole life and I will continue to preach on your behalf for the whole world to hear that you saved me from huge financial debt with just a small Investment, thank you Jihan Wu you're such a life saver
I'm favoured, 90K every week! I can now give back to the locals in my communities and also support the church. God bless America,, thank you Mr Jihan Wu😊🎉
Waking up every tenth of each month to £210,000 it’s a blessing to I and my family… Big gratitude to this same Jihan Wu🙌
Most rich people stay rich by spending like the poor and investing without stopping then most poor people stay poor by spending like the rich yet not investing like the rich but impressing them. People prefer to spend money on liabilities, Rather than investing in assets and be very profitable
I remember reading about a Computer named HAL trying to correct errors that became apparent at a very bad time.
Sounds about right, but ... (1) I expect advances in AI to help with this. (2) We have empirically been spectacularly successful with technology improvement. Modern silicon is breathtakingly advanced compared to where it started.
seems to be economicaly related :
Zapata AI, one of the pioneering startups in the quantum software market, has ceased operations as of October 9, 2024. The sudden terminations appears to have been precipitated by an acceleration of payment of about $2.5 million that the company owed to Sandia Investment Management LP. Originally, this payment was not due until a Valuation Date of March 28, 2026, but the company received notice from Sandia that this date had been accelerated to October 8, 2024. So the company had to shut down and terminate almost all of the employees except for a handful that will be needed for a short time to finalize the termination activities. This event is especially surprising because Zapata had just announced a new partnership with MAG Aerospace on October 1, 2024.
AI’s always have a nice strategy to present for trade, but I haven’t seen any trade strategy as good as that of Shanita Creswell, she absolutely made a fortune out of the little amount I started trading with and she was the best teacher and mentor I’ve ever met all my period of trading
Naturally, there's a lot of math involved in forex trading. but this is often presented in forms of daunting technical charts, indicators, patterns.
Trading systems allow you to limit the factor of emotional influence on decision-making, as well as to give the trade a certain degree of systemic character.
The best course of action if you lack market knowledge is to ask a consultant or investing coach for guidance or assistance. Speaking with a consultant helped me stay afloat in the market and grow my portfolio to about 65% since January, even though I know it sounds obvious or generic. I believe that is the most effective way to enter the business at the moment.
I need advice on how to rebuild my portfolio and develop more
successful tactics. Where can I find this coach?
I’ve grown so much in forex through the mentoring of Shanita Creswell
$100 billion is not a lot of money for some governments. It depends on the payoff, but breaking current encryption methods is a goal they are certainly interested in.
They have backdoors
Great example of an academic with a blind spot. Dead wrong because you don’t consider geopolitics.
US has been using QC to break encryption for 5+ years. China has recently announced they are doing the same. And NIST is flashing that everyone should move to post-quantum encryption as soon as possible.
Even the CHIPS act was about limiting the tech that helps make QC to China, buried in normal semiconductor advancement.
Consider the whole problem.
us has been using qc to break encryption for 5 years? What cipher are we talking about
What do you have to say about google willow?
IONQ YTD +104% 52w High: 25.78 52w Low 6.26 Last 24.78
What problems that can be solved by Quantum Computing are worth the cost of the hardware to solve them?
Encrypted stuff.
Quantum computing itself
Top of the short list I can think of is Cryptography. Obviously everything quantum costs a fortune, but if that cost is spread out across hundreds of millions of users it could be economical for google or IBM or someone to market quantum cryptography-powered computer security protocol for safe(r) online transactions. I think this is most likely because its not actually all that difficult when compared to other idealized uses, and it would be marketable to a massive amount of customers.
Last I checked quantum computers are still doing middle school math, so it may still be awhile.
Encryption analysis by government intelligence agencies… that’s kinda the only possible application that is plausible I heard about
Encryption breaking. There's very little that governments and other bad actors won't pay to be able to break into all those encrypted files they have archived.
This reminds me of a short my 14 year old son sent me. "As a knight, it is your duty to slay dragons," said the king. "Very well, my liege, may I ask why?" Said the knight. "Because they hoard wealth, and people are afraid of their capricious moods," said the king. "Very well," said the knight, drawing his sword.
"We have seen the enemy... and it is --us-- mega-capitalism's capricious greed."
Alas. 😢
@RickJaeger yikes, I quoted the channel and it was not grammatically correct. Embarrassing, but I thank you for letting me know. I'll edit my comment.
@@SunnyAquamarine2
My hero!
A hundred billion is nothing if or when quantum computing becomes a commercial reality. If that sum is the number to get us there, then quantum computing is a certain sure bet.
"Promising and Unpromising." Sabine the Savage😂😂😂
Happy about these updates.💚
Your creativity is incredibly refreshing!
The Fusion energy of computing.
Wrong. Eventually AI will run on quantum computers, and only then will it become conscious (Orch OR theory). We are just at the beginning stages of quantum computing, like machine learning a decade or two ago. Net positive fusion though can only happen in stars, and we are chasing a ghost goose.
Schrodinger's neighbors want to know where their cat is
Ask Beethoven … who’s rolling over to ask Tschaikowski…
I like cats. 🐱
As a layperson, I have a question that you might be able to comment on. Particles can supposedly spontaneously appear in empty space. What does this tell us about the nature of space and the nature of particles? Are particles just some kind of twisted-up space? Thanks in advance.
I think error correction will counter most of quantum's speed advantage.
If the error correction is a polynomial factor, then no it won't
+
@@thefigmaster3519 it doesn't matter when the majority of qubits are errors. I'm saying that it won't ever be stable enough to gain an advantage. It's most likely going to require several tries per cycle to get all the qubits stable. And it would still always require some level of error correction after computing.
Plus I'm like 30% sure quantum computing won't become an actual thing except for a few novelty systems.
Because as far as I can find the only software running on actual quantum hardware is just strings of random numbers.
@@DudeManDude-ot5fv The problem is they try to treat an analog system like it is digital. Noise/error/uncertainty is a feature of analog that makes analog analog.
@@DudeManDude-ot5fv Existing QC platforms are steadily approaching error thresholds at which error correction can be mathematically proven to have polynomial overhead. . .
Oh, I don't know, Sabine... The Pentagon alone loses more money than that every year. So... Who knows.
Anyway, stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
They don't actually lose it. They just can't tell where it is. BIG difference.
@@mennol3885 Well... You're not wrong...
I am glad for Pentagon losing money in the way you think It does. It saves the lives of many throughout the world.
God bless US.
Are you saying that companies should stop trying and that Quantum computing is a concept that will never work?! I am don't really understand this subject that's very far from my field. I sometimes invest in companies that look to do well, IONQ research brought me here. Apparently, there are making some good progress and that next year there will release a new version with less errors that can be used to generate revenue... 🤔 does this sounds like wishful thinking? or is there a possibility.
It's fascinating how someone's brain can work in most fields of study, but when it comes to global warming, it completely switches off.
Global Warming is not the issue politicians claim.
Earth is a closed-loop system. Nothing arrives or leaves (except helium).
Carbon dioxide entrapped in "fossil fuels" was once not trapped.
A cursory look at the science shows 280ppm trapped in the oldest ice on earth, at the time the planet froze over and 90% of land dwelling mammals went extinct (this was only 10,000-30,000ya).
We are only just out of this wretched cold period. And humanity barely survived. In addition to increased solar activity, the planet gained 100ppm on its own in a short time before the industrial revolution.
It has since gained another 50-80ppm in only 150-200 years.
This is certainly man made.
But to say this is going to lead to death on the planet is pure religious fantasy.
All of the coal and oil is plant matter. And all of that plant matter came from photosynthesis.
Carbon in the atmosphere used to be far, far higher.
When it was 2,200ppm lizards grew 20ft tall. Mushrooms 2m in diameter. Trees were often twice as tall as they are now.
When the carbon content was 8,000ppm (20x current) we had the Cambrian explosion.
A time when not only more new species evolved, but entirely new branches of the evolutionary chain developed.
As to these cataclysimcal tripocal storms everyone is afraid of, there is an upper limit to storm strength and this is barometric pressure. This is a function of atmospheric density, and this will not change appreciably. To generate strong einds there must be a pressure differential, and this dofferential is finite and already limits the maximum storm strength possible anywhere on earth. Adding heat only increases the frequency, or probability, that any given storm might be stronger than otherwise.
As to the overall ideology: all living things are carbon based.
To say carbon will ruin earth or destroy life on earth is pure anti-science, anti-reason, insanity.
Global Warming is not the issue politicians claim.
Earth is a closed-loop system. Nothing arrives or leaves (except helium).
Carbon dioxide that is entrapped in "fossil fuels" was once not trapped. It was in the atmosphere.
A cursory look at the science shows 280ppm carbon content trapped in the oldest ice on earth, at the time the planet froze over and 90% of land dwelling mammals went extinct (this was as recent as 10,000-30,000ya).
We are only just out of this wretched cold period. And humanity barely survived. In addition to increased solar activity, the planet also gained 100ppm CO2 on its own in a short time before the industrial revolution.
It has since gained another 50-80ppm in only 150-200 years. Most of which in the last 50 years.
This is certainly man made. And burning fossil fuels is clearly releasing this carbon.
But to say this is going to lead to death on the planet is pure religious fantasy.
All of the coal and oil is plant matter. Decomposed in an anaerobic environment. All of that plant matter came from photosynthesis.
Carbon in the atmosphere used to be far, far higher. And plants absorbed it, converted it, got buried in landslides and river bottoms, and trapped it.
Before, when atmospheric carbon was 2,200ppm, lizards grew well over 20ft tall. Mushrooms 2m in diameter. Trees were often twice as tall as they are now. On average.
When the carbon content was 8,000ppm (20x current) this facilitated the Cambrian explosion.
A time when not only more new species evolved, but entirely new branches of the evolutionary chain developed. And we have never seen this abundant creative evolution since.
As to these cataclysimcal tripocal storms everyone is afraid of, there is an upper limit to storm strength and this is barometric pressure.
This is a function of atmospheric density, which is gas molecular weight, times height. And this will not change appreciably.
To generate strong winds there must be a large pressure differential, and this differential is finite, and already limits the maximum storm strength possible anywhere on earth.
Adding heat only increases the frequency, or probability, that any given storm might be stronger than otherwise. But they cannot become some sort of super storm the world has never seen. Because this defies not only science. But physics as well. (The latter is apparently held to a higher standard of truth).
As to the overall ideology of catastrophe from global warming due to mankind's release of ancient carbon stores: All living things are carbon based.
To say carbon will ruin earth or destroy life on earth is pure anti-science, anti-reason, insanity.
what are u trying to say
@@0nullBit Ideology trumps logic.
Aged like milk.
Saw your modular nuclear power plant video and fall in love with your humor. Subbed.
Looks like we went from "The Quantum Winter is coming" 2 years ago to "The quantum hype bubble is about to burst" a year ago and currently at "The quantum computing collapse has begun".
Quantum computing will not collapse until you one observed it
I see what you did there, and it was genius
how do you get logical output from qbits? doesn't our whole basis of computing function on logic gates built from true false networks of transistors? if you made all those true and false both at any time or some point in the middle doesn't that make how we make programs and process data not work? It seems like every qbit is a error and how do you even know what state to use and do this so it does anything more then revert to working exactly like transistor based logic gates...
An administration to administer an administration of administers...isn't that how government works?
We could replace everyone with Quantum Computers. 😅
To be fair, most people could be replaced with an old 8-bit computer.
It even more fundamental. - it is how managers work!
Radically decentralized Byzantine fault tolerant massively parallel computing (called also "crypto" and "blockchain" ) is quantum computing in that sense.
Given that quantum computing is hyped as a better, faster way to solve a limited class of computational problems, the epitaph for quantum computing may go like this:
"IT WAS A $100B SOLUTION FOR A $10B PROBLEM."
Personally, this Sabine's take on this seems alarmist and sensationalist. The very first product I see is probably already attainable; a quantum dongle for encryption. And that could protect the world's economy [somewhat] from other emerging quantum (and classical) evolution.
A dongle? Like something you would carry with you in your pocket? You realize that the current devices require temperatures close to absolute 0 to operate and are meters in size? And cost tens of millions of dollars to build?
@@VladimirNicolici You have limited vision, but sure. You do recall that mainframes used to fill entire rooms, right?
I presented a simple and probably achievable use case that would justify the entire investment and industry.
You thought a flex was in order.
@@PrometheanConsulting You said "probably already attainable". Which to me means something like this year or next year. You know how long it took from "mainframes" that fill entire rooms to having a computer (smart phone) in our pockets? Roughly 60 years, from around 1940 to 2000. I would be very surprised to see a quantum computer, of any complexity, in the average home 20 years from now, let alone in my pocket. It's not about "flexing", it's just that in my opinion a "dongle" would be one of the least feasible practical applications of QC in the short term. And I couldn't see how you thought otherwise. I still can't.
@@PrometheanConsulting”probably achievable” 😂😂😂
Remember that the phone that sits in your pocket now is stronger than the early generation computers, which were the size of entire rooms.
QC will probably reach viability someday... But not anytime this decade, I think. It should be viewed as an investment in the RnD of an emergent tech in it's infancy, not something that will return your investment next year.
It's quite amusing to watch physics reduced to reactionary entertainment videos.
Yeah, I'm starting to feel like this channel is going downhill. Recently every single topic has been doomer "it will NEVER happen" takes ("man will never fly in a million years"), and often these takes are about subjects that Sabine has no qualifications for. There's a difference between skepticism and sensationalist nay-saying for clicks.
Hrrehee.
@@thebloatedwalrusman6415 "sensationalist nay-saying for clicks." - that was a good one. You just characterized 99.9% of videos on TH-cam. This channel makes no exception.
Remember the videos about topics about 1-2 years ago? Yes, me too barely. Since the "Science News" category started, it has taken over nearly all the channel, and we get a bit of commentary, often shallow, that is sometimes interesting. But looking into things for real, looking at experiments or aspects in physics, explaining as deep as it is possible - you know, a real science education channel, that's long ago. Thanks for the heads up, because I needed that wakeup call, to reflect what Sabine does nowadays.
I have to ask myself the question, if just some commentary on science news is enough for me. Otherwise I might unsubscribe to look for other places. The reason I came for here, isn't there anymore.
@@IroAppe You said it better than I did!
Its like hearing "experts" in 1960/70 talking about computers will be 100 times more expensive and bigger...
Tech always finds the right path.
This is exactly what people thought before electricity, before industrial revolution, before atomic bomb, before genetic engineering, before LHC, before reusable rockets, before any technological advance. In the comments people laugh about a 30 years span for a major technological breakthrough, this time frame is nothing compared to nature's time, come on people: we are trying to make the sun in our backyards, we are trying to harness the power of the quantum world, even 200 hundred years are a very short time to achieve this huge milestones, we are trying to emulate and control nature!!! The problem is everything now in the world moves in capitalism terms, we may be deprived of having this huge accomplishments just because a couple of fat, greedy billionaire investors are going to loose 5% of their wealth and they won't be able to buy another yacht. We as society have let that happen. So i hope we reach that milestones even if them would only be achieved when society changes or adapts it's current socioeconomic system.
Didn't age well...
Fr
Hahha when I saw the news I remembered this video and had to come back and look at the new comments
Your information about existing quantum computer architectures is very limited and wrong
For example, Google had tunable qubits while IBM has fixed frequency qubits. That’s why IBM scaled to 1000 qubits so fast. But it’s extremely worse in terms of error. So IBM probably gave up and will turn to a Google like architecture.
Quantum computing will not die soon, because it’s unique and only way to improve computation exponentially and part of the larger flow of quantum technologies.
With almost certainty, quantum computers will be part of the future. Unless, you prove BBP is equal to BQP and give an algorithm to convert algorithms from BQP to BBP
This aged well… Willow says hold my beer.
The irony is that $100B is what some companies are currently looking to pour into the next generation of LLMs... Personally feel that in the long term a functioning quantum computer would be a better investment, but the hype shoe is currently on the other foot.
Exactly. Look at the valuation of the biggest AI companies. What are a few (hundred) billion?
Both are absolute wastes of money.
Yeah, it's debatable how much more LLMs can be improved and if it's worth the costs. They seem to scale well with giving them a lot of good training data, but that's not an unlimited resource. The Internet is getting more and more polluted by their output so it's harder and harder to get clean training data. But, while LLMs are clearly overhyped too, and despite their many problems, they are quite useful, even for regular people, even today. Quantum computing makes a lot of promises for the future, and while it will no doubt be useful for science, I think it's not likely to have the same impact in day to day life as LLMs currently do. There is also talk about combining AI with quantum computing, but I'm a bit skeptical about that. But I've been wrong before, so we'll see.
Quantum computing always struck me as a solution looking for a problem.... a brilliant demonstration of technology and useless at the same time.
Definetly. On the more speculative side I remember when the dwave website bragged about really weird stuff like claiming to be reaching into another dimension of existance to extract data, which kind of makes sense when you are isolating a particle at such a low energy point it would be more open to other influence. Also sounds like they just let the electrons spit out information and see what it says, which is weird.
A problem looking for a problem
This is called "research". Most of research doesn't have a direct usage in aim.
@ZAWARUD00 for profit companies don’t research for research sake
@ZAWARUD00 not quite...the initial research - is qbit computing possible - was completed some time back. This is application and therein lies my concern.
The bandwagon was never going to match reality in that qbit computing requires extreme physical conditions to work. That was never going to scale to extensive commercial use.
Sabine. A question for you if I can ask it? Analogue computers were all the rage until the speed of digital computers overtook them. Note all this money being pumped into getting something that can hold a varying state seems like a lot. Would it be more economically viable to increase the performance of operational amplifiers instead?