Yes but if you’re involved in physics you know that physics papers are rich in discourse with correct and incorrect ideas alike.
With Phoenix IBM has a system with over 100 qubits close to 99.9 2Q Fidelity and though that does not sound like much it’s already enough to run operations that can’t be computed classically. The system is so well built that most of these qubits can perform well without crosstalk errors hindering execution, and with phoenix they solved mid circuit reset which didn’t work well before, blocking experiments for meaningful runtime error correction.
I also have to add that, so far, we know only a handful of algorithms which might run on a general quantum computer (if we had one!). Among those, only two performs something which would actually be useful (Grover and Shor). And we have only those, not for a lack of trying.. it's because coming up with quantum algorithms is intrinsically complicated (it's definitely not like writing an algorithm for a classical machine). So those quantum bits could be, in theory, the most stable thing in the universe, I'd still see them as irrelevant in everyday applications.
I agree with the “in everyday applications” qualifier. But there are plenty of applications that are research focused where having access to a proper quantum computer would be useful. As a Quantum Circuit fundamentally models a Unitary transformation on some quantum state it is hugely useful to model the time evolution of quantum systems which are experimentally difficult to access using a quantum computer.
Oh the ordering and lack of commas in my phrasing made it my point unclear. What I mean is: using a quantum computer enables simulating quantum systems that can otherwise not be simulated in a reasonable time (using a conventional computer) and that is especially problematic if those systems can’t be experimentally looked at easily.
The trouble is that greed is a force right now which obscures in both directions. If a company didn’t have an algorithm set and hardware that will print billions they might imply they have it. If they did they might imply they don’t for fear of competition. Likewise government customers want to to enjoy extending their harvest now decrypt later investments and pressure companies to say less, for example Google and ECDSA.fail
Comments
Yes but if you’re involved in physics you know that physics papers are rich in discourse with correct and incorrect ideas alike.
With Phoenix IBM has a system with over 100 qubits close to 99.9 2Q Fidelity and though that does not sound like much it’s already enough to run operations that can’t be computed classically. The system is so well built that most of these qubits can perform well without crosstalk errors hindering execution, and with phoenix they solved mid circuit reset which didn’t work well before, blocking experiments for meaningful runtime error correction.
There’s an open scoreboard ibm runs open to all to submit problems demonstrating algorithmic breakthroughs https://quantum-advantage-tracker.github.io/
I also have to add that, so far, we know only a handful of algorithms which might run on a general quantum computer (if we had one!). Among those, only two performs something which would actually be useful (Grover and Shor). And we have only those, not for a lack of trying.. it's because coming up with quantum algorithms is intrinsically complicated (it's definitely not like writing an algorithm for a classical machine). So those quantum bits could be, in theory, the most stable thing in the universe, I'd still see them as irrelevant in everyday applications.
I agree with the “in everyday applications” qualifier. But there are plenty of applications that are research focused where having access to a proper quantum computer would be useful. As a Quantum Circuit fundamentally models a Unitary transformation on some quantum state it is hugely useful to model the time evolution of quantum systems which are experimentally difficult to access using a quantum computer.
You mean "... using a conventional computer"? (Excuse me if you didn't mean that.)
Oh the ordering and lack of commas in my phrasing made it my point unclear. What I mean is: using a quantum computer enables simulating quantum systems that can otherwise not be simulated in a reasonable time (using a conventional computer) and that is especially problematic if those systems can’t be experimentally looked at easily.
If two AIs talk to each other does the rest of the forest hear?
The trouble is that greed is a force right now which obscures in both directions. If a company didn’t have an algorithm set and hardware that will print billions they might imply they have it. If they did they might imply they don’t for fear of competition. Likewise government customers want to to enjoy extending their harvest now decrypt later investments and pressure companies to say less, for example Google and ECDSA.fail
It's still mostly a research tool. Don't be too harsh on an early system like this. One day it (may) become widely available and used by millions.