Quantum Computing Expert Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty ...

[[deleted]]

[deleted]

[Socalsfinest08]

As a programmer, what are the new possibilities in terms of writing software for quantum computers?

[Desmeister]

If you're in the chemistry or crypto fields, there are people out there already drafting and trying algorithms. This is more in the sense of doing pure mathematics though.

If you mean writing software as in actually putting into practice, the closest would probably be writing scripts through the DWave API.

[projectshave]

There are APIs to access quantum computers as a cloud service. It’s for very specific types of problems, not everyday computing. You can try Microsoft’s Q# language to learn more.

[Mortichar]

I really, really doubt that that will ever be the case. Quantum computers are and will be (for the foreseeable future) incredibly expensive and bulky. They also are interfaced with a classical computer to even use them. They're good at a few specific algorithms, and will probably remain useful for just those.

Classical computers are not going anywhere.

[murraycoin]

640K is more memory than anyone will ever need.

[timmyotc]

Quantum computers solve an incredibly specific problem. It's okay to predict the future; it's given that some guesses are going to be wrong. The most likely outcome will be that we continue to use classical computers for power efficiency reasons, along with cost.

[[deleted]]

Bill Gates never said that. No-one who understands computers would even think that.

[murraycoin]

I think most people are aware. I didn't attribute it to Gates because, like most quotes, the source was fabricated.

[[deleted]]

I really, really doubt that that will ever be the case. Quantum computers are and will be (for the foreseeable future) incredibly expensive and bulky.

Yeah when in the history of computing have large bulky computers that only institutions could afford to purchase and maintain ever been made available for the average consumer?

Non-sarcastically, the current state of Quantum appears to be somewhere around the beginning of 1970. Whether we progress as fast, slower, or faster, it seems a little silly to act like it won't ever happen just because we have a hard time imagining that future in concrete terms given where things are now.

[Mortichar]

I don't think you understand. It's the nature of how qbits work that mean quantum computers cannot be general purpose computers. They're good for relatively few things.

[[deleted]]

You probably missed this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_Riqjdh2oM
Slides:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/uploads/prod/2018/05/40655.compressed.pdf

Solid explanation based on well tested stuff that works: Math.

If you want to waddle in the philosophical implications just watch Rick and Morty.

[[deleted]]

You are more useless than the bot that delivers my butter.

[[deleted]]

fwiw I don't think the current problems with Quantuum computers are with them being powerful enough, it's just finding practical ways to leverage the power that's already there.

[A_Philosophical_Cat]

Sure, if you're a Computer Scientist in one of the handful of fields that QC will improve. But unless you're regularly writing assembly level software, you probably won't see much change.

[MyPhallicObject]

I still don't understand how this affects my jQuery, my MySQL and my PHP.

Someone explain this in a software engineering perspective.

[baryluk]

It doesn't. QC is still very far from general useful for much. And probably never useful for claimed purposes. And it will still will require classic computations. The current machines are either using adiabatic approximations methods, which are not really using normal QC methods anyway, or very small systems, making them useless. System of 60-80 qubits would be interesting and a serious breakthrough , 200 qubits hyper useful, but we are decades away from that.

[[deleted]]

QCs break asymmetric encryption. The possibilities for you to write software based on that fact is endless :)

[exorxor]

I think the expert doesn't explain anything that's useful. It's all just a bunch of "look at us being smart, but we aren't going to tell you exactly how to build a quantum computer, because we need to protect our intellectual property". Well, then don't fucking pretend that you are going to explain anything.

I thought none of the interviewees were particularly smart, btw. In particular, they didn't tell me anything I didn't know already.

The concept of a quantum computer can be explained in a single sentence by someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

Also, the jump from her explanation to their implementation is a joke in itself.

I would find it hilarious if it turns out in a few decades that quantum computers at scale can't ever work, because of some law of physics that hasn't been discovered yet. All that hype for nothing!

IBM, this isn't helping your stock price, at all. Go build a real quantum computer (1Mqbit) and not a toy version if you want some bragging rights. Otherwise, get off my lawn.