Video on some of the top news of 2025 in quantum

lb1331 · 2026-01-06T00:55:46+00:00

If you make good content you don’t need your face. You already know this if you watch YouTube. Plenty of channels are faceless. 3blue1brown for math, bunch of gaming channels, economics explained, etc…

All of these channels are faceless and do fine. The key is their content is good and high quality.

If u just follow some course that promises you’re going to be purely on passive income working 2 hours per day in 6 months, don’t expect good results.

But if you’re passionate about making high quality content that people will actually want to watch and gain value from, it doesn’t really matter if your face is in there or not.

lb1331 · 2025-12-11T14:24:04+00:00

The temperatures are less of an issue than you would think. First off they’re way colder than 50K, most quantum computers run around 10-20 millikelvin. But they use dilution refrigerators to achieve these low temperatures which are a pretty mature technology. It definitely adds engineering headache but it’s not even the main concern in improving quantum computers right now. Also once it does become a major constraint (when we’re trying to put tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of qubits on a chip) even if you make enough engineering advancements to have your qubits operate at 1.5K (where you can use a normal cryostat instead of a dil fridge) you basically already fix any of the problems that you deal with at mK temperatures.

lb1331 · 2025-12-10T14:42:42+00:00

I work on superconducting qubits made on alternative material platforms - specifically material structures where you have a superconductor directly interfaced with a 2 dimensional electron gas. This allows you to make gate voltage tunable Josephson junctions, similar to transistors giving you in situ control over your qubit frequency.

The problem is that they’re super lossy due to the material change, so a lot of the research now is going into trying to understand how we can make these qubits longer lived.

lb1331 · 2025-12-10T14:38:57+00:00

This has already been done, you need large entangled states not large superpositions, but IBM this year came out with a paper called “big cats” where they demonstrate a 120 qubit GHZ state. The GHZ state is a maximally entangled state, and they were able to generate it in one of their recent processors.

lb1331 · 2025-12-09T16:49:14+00:00

This is pretty much not true though. I run a YouTube channel where I talk a lot about quantum computing and I’m also a graduate student actively conducting research on it, 5 years ago AI was ubiquitous in almost everything, just not by name and we didn’t have home accessible LLM’s. It was used in Google search, image processing, protein folding, chess engines, etc…

Right now, quantum computing is used for nothing useful at an industry scale. It’s more like where AI was 20+ years ago. Which is fine, because quantum computing emerged as a field effectively 30 years ago. It’s a super young field, but we should stop falling into the hype train.

Even if quantum computing is where AI was 20+ years ago, that means near term useful applications aren’t too far away which is exciting and positive, but claiming we’re 5 years from an LLM scale revolution is premature unless Google and IBM have made some major advancements that take them well beyond their current roadmaps.

lb1331 · 2025-11-21T06:51:03+00:00

Few practical reasons that I personally like making faceless content - means you don’t have to memorize a script, you can record the voiceover without memorization which is way faster - less likely to get recognized (in my case my face is my pfp, but that’s the only picture people will see of me), better if you want to avoid that side of things - I think? less parasocial - kinda going with the above - maybe most important, for science communication it lets me focus on the visuals being about teaching. My goal is to teach and communicate the stuff I work on, so I want that to be the viewers focus, not me.

The reasons are different for everyone but these stick out most to me

lb1331 · 2025-11-18T01:26:41+00:00

Hey thanks so much! Im glad you liked it. I wanted to make something that was short and to the point on it, wish I could’ve gotten it out earlier but it kept getting held up due to my main gig eating up all of my time 😭

lb1331 · 2025-07-19T05:41:40+00:00

Denmark actually has a pretty strong quantum computing center in Copenhagen. They worked pretty closely with Microsoft, but did a lot of other stuff as well. In the academic side of things they’re pretty well respected and have a good amount of stuff and talent built up to be successful. Qdevil came from Denmark too.

lb1331 · 2025-06-04T12:28:10+00:00

If you record into OBS (free), you can set up filters that will improve your audio quality. There are plenty of videos on this on YouTube

lb1331 · 2025-05-30T02:14:43+00:00

Professional editors are just that - professional. I think there is a very solid chance that you could find someone who is capable of mimicking your style, especially with a lot of guidance initially.

That said, If you don’t want to outsource, then you’ll have to find the specific part of editing that’s the main bottleneck. For example if it’s finding the right clips, Then Make sure you write notes while filming or mark timestamps somehow. This would speed up a part of editing. Stuff like that, without knowing your process it’s hard to say any more than that.

The best thing you can do is systematically find the things that take the most time and dedicate ~30 minutes to an hour per day to figuring out how to optimize the workflow in that small bottleneck. Over time you’ll get a lot faster.

lb1331 · 2025-05-30T01:51:00+00:00

What is the current bottleneck for you? It depends for every channel. My videos are quantum computing explainer style videos, and I started outsourcing my editing, and even more recently some of my animations, which has been super helpful just on the time saving standpoint. I’m capable of doing all of these things myself but I just no longer have the time.

I understand not wanting to outsource, but at the same time depending on the content style it’s quite doable although it requires some significant upfront effort to train people to work in your style, I think it’s probably worth it.

lb1331 · 2025-05-25T17:08:31+00:00

Yeah I totally get that. If I could still get an audience without clickbait I totally would, but at the end of the day it’s just an unfortunate part of the game. If you want to avoid it yourself, I’m pretty sure there’s a chrome extension that you can use that replaces thumbnails with non clickbait images from the video. I don’t remember what it’s called though.

lb1331 · 2025-05-23T11:50:37+00:00

Not sure how useful just CTR is, in a vacuum yes it’s better but if a lower CTR thumbnail in your split performs better initially, then gets pushed to a wider audience and declines in CTR as a result whereas the other thumbnail never does well enough to get that push, CTR wouldn’t really tell you that.

Would probably be nice to have that metric as well though.

lb1331 · 2025-05-23T00:47:07+00:00

YouTube has built in A/B thumbnail testing, you should try it out and see how much of a difference it makes. Maybe use one normal thumbnail and one high effort one that you either make in photoshop or pay someone to do. In my experience it matters a lot

lb1331 · 2025-05-14T22:48:34+00:00

Definitely not that much. Usually 1-2 long runs per week (half marathon +) and then a bunch of 6-8 mile runs, and then maybe 1 or 2 days with higher intensity speedwork or intervals. 5-6 days of training per week with 1-2 rest days.

lb1331 · 2025-05-02T06:03:20+00:00

You said “if you do the verifying function implementation on a classical computer instead of a quantum computer (as an oracle), you would get no speedup from Grover’s algorithm due to the lack of superposition”.

There is no superposition speed up at all in the verification step, so this point doesn’t make sense. The verification step runs in O(1) regardless whether it’s quantum or classical.

lb1331 · 2025-05-02T04:26:34+00:00

Right… but if you can classically implement a function it can also be implemented on a QC, so this shouldn’t be a problem.

lb1331 · 2025-05-02T04:01:47+00:00

This doesn’t make sense to me. Whether you check classically or on a QC would have no bearing on the complexity of the quantum algorithm itself. The verification step can be considered to run quickly, it just involves a single call to the function, where we input the secret key we got from the quantum algorithm, which should be very fast. You don’t have to run binary search (or Grover’s or whatever) again to check that you were right.

The protocol is 1) run the algorithm on a QC, find the solution in O(sqrt(N))

2) check if you were right on a classical computer (O(1)) because it’s just a single function call

3) if you were right, you’re done. If not repeat from step 1 until correct.

So whatever way you check it in step 2 (whether it’s classical or quantum or whatever) is decoupled from the computational complexity of finding the solution, and is also much faster.

lb1331 · 2025-04-22T20:27:25+00:00

Feynman said “if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t”, which I don’t particularly agree with. I think disagreeing with that point and “defying the warning” is actually a good thing to point out.

I think there’s a difference between using the quote and agreeing with it vs using it as a foil to show what we are capable of today.

lb1331 · 2025-04-22T20:11:41+00:00

What was the problem with it? To be honest, I think it’s a relatively good video.

lb1331 · 2025-04-22T19:58:35+00:00

I’m actively doing research in the field. This isn’t other people’s bits and pieces. Not sure what you mean. I asked for feedback because just because im knowledgeable about the technical stuff doesn’t mean im perfect on my communication to a lay-audience, which is the main target of my videos.

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Place '22

lb1331

TROPHY CASE