Quantum Computing

[Potamoi]

Had this Michio Kaku conversation on in the background whilst... er...um... doing some chores on my... PC today:

https://open.spotify.com/episode/41RxLA ... d092bd4076

Like most of Rogan's discussions its over 2 hours so here is another 45 min condensed version on Startalk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfvoBlDUrPU
I wish there was a way to hear just Michio without all the less interesting fluff from there others, but there you go.

and then a 10 min video for the interested that have a shorter time budget:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pb_NdBRX6A

We may just see this computing happen in the real world in some of our lifetimes.
Exciting and disturbing but interesting in any case. It will change EVERYTHING!

[tamada]

Suggests that if AI and Quantum computing gets into bed with each other, "Watch out!"

[Potamoi]

Yup, then he did say later the quantum hardware could effectively fact check the AI software thus keeping the spread of untruths at bay. Just need Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics in place to keep things from getting out of hand, I suppose.

- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Old Isaac wrote those in 1942 apparently.

[tamada]

I need to read more on how a quantum computer hardware has the ability to fact check. A car needs gas to do it's job so doesn't a computer need software?

[Potamoi]

Perhaps fact check isn't the correct term to use but basically performing the processing simultaneously for every scenario millions of times faster than current Supercomputers would remove the need to go see what some dweeb wrote on a blog post in order to train the AI with a bios is how I understood it. Don't get me wrong, I don't REALLY understand quantum computing, just trying to understand what the message was in the discussion.

Happy to listen to what others saw in the Rogan/Michio Kaku conversation. I may need to buy his latest book when my next Audible credit comes to me:

https://www.audible.com/pd/Quantum-Supr ... 8dceb62f2c

[Potamoi]

This may be helpful for us to understand the hardware side of this:



Neil Gershenfeld is quite remarkable in his works. Interesting.

[Whistler]

I only watched the 10 minute video and was unimpressed. The explanation for progress of hardware was not very accurate. The jump from 1960's transistor based to today ignored immense advances in computing, silicon chips, huge advances in data storage, cluster computing, server farms, cloud computing etc etc. It was terribly simplistic.

In 1966 my first computer had 961 characters of memory, weighed around one tonne, it had some valves and transistors. To suggest we move from that to quantum computers without acknowledging the gigantic evolution over the past 50 to 60 years seemed silly to me.

AI same, same. Forms of AI have been around for more many, many years but were called it modelling. There is a lot of jaw flapping going on and too much hype.

Remember Y2K and the over reaction, this looks similar hype it up, get lots of venture capital, then only partially deliver on promises.

[Drunk Monkey]

Mean while back in the USA this quick vid grasps in a nut shell what Quantum computing is all about ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um_ZEFwlWV4

[Whistler]

DM, what has Quantum Computing got to do with Scunthorpe misfits migrating to a mid west town in Ohio?

[Potamoi]

I only watched the 10 minute video and was unimpressed. The explanation for progress of hardware was not very accurate. The jump from 1960's transistor based to today ignored immense advances in computing, silicon chips, huge advances in data storage, cluster computing, server farms, cloud computing etc etc. It was terribly simplistic.

In 1966 my first computer had 961 characters of memory, weighed around one tonne, it had some valves and transistors. To suggest we move from that to quantum computers without acknowledging the gigantic evolution over the past 50 to 60 years seemed silly to me.

AI same, same. Forms of AI have been around for more many, many years but were called it modelling. There is a lot of jaw flapping going on and too much hype.

Remember Y2K and the over reaction, this looks similar hype it up, get lots of venture capital, then only partially deliver on promises.

Well I'm a little confused on what precisely you are objecting to, sir.

Now I am regretting my effort in trying to help those with lack of the time budget as they are certainly not worthy of MY time for sure. Please disregard the 10 min post if it does not fit your liking and put in the time to see the original before your keyboard betrays your sense once again.

If one is truly after understanding, please watch the first video/podcast. One might come to a less negative um, rebuttal? or complaining or just a bunch of negative verbiage? or just be quiet like those who have no actual content focused discussion in their quiver.

Please feel free to make any comment or criticism of a post or its content directly but do so in a manor that we all might not just stop reading do to you own misunderstanding of what was a knowledge sharing segment.

[Whistler]

Wow, that is quite a spray. Sorry I had no idea that what you posted was so sacrosanct that it was beyond comment.

I did cop a similar tongue lashing many years ago from a professor of computer science at Woolongong university who claimed that grep would obviate the need for databases.

If I have some spare time I might look at the longer docos, but I certainly won't be game to comment on them.

[Whistler]

Mr P.

I will try to get this lady's email, so you can give her a serve. She also claims Quantum technology is overhyped and some of the stuff in your videos is actually rubbish as no communication between nodes can exceed the speed of light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-aGIvUomTA

Oh, and other reputable scientists are saying the same.

[Potamoi]

If I have some spare time I might look at the longer docos, but I certainly won't be game to comment on them.

I will try to get this lady's email, so you can give her a serve. She also claims Quantum technology is overhyped and some of the stuff in your videos is actually rubbish as no communication between nodes can exceed the speed of light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-aGIvUomTA

Oh, and other reputable scientists are saying the same.

I guess it's settled then. Her videos are certainly entertaining. Her education and achievements are not to be disregarded. She isn't quite up to the level of Michio Kaku or Neil Gershenfeld IMHO but certainly has the education to make excellent points. I just wish she backed up her debunking comments with theoretical solutions from time to time. Here is what another scientist had to say about her work:

“She likes pointing out problems we already know, without providing new solutions.”

Fair enough and I do like to hear two sides of any theory/argument/narrative. Thank you for taking the time to completely watch the 3 odd hours of the first two links in my original post and spending the time and calories to find an opposing viewpoint. Must have taken up a good portion of your Friday morning. I'm flattered. Have a good weekend Mr. W.

[Whistler]

I have been in IT for 57 years, sounds a long time and it is. I still work in this field. Over time, I have seen a lot of hype about various technologies, even from heavy weights like IBM. I am designing commercial software now, but my previous contract roll was in AI.

What I have come to realise is that 70% of academics are off the planet and come up with some ridiculous theories. So many times I have shaken my head at the sheer stupidity of some ideas.

Top that off with marketeers in the major IT companies, including IBM, Microsoft, Google etc. Smart arse 20 and 30 somethings with a business degree, flash haircut and pointy shoes. They often spruik solutions/ technologies that are nonsense, but they have the ear of management as they are in the revenue side of IT business.

One example of the touted power of Quantum computing is improved security? Simply not needed, 128 bit encryption has been with us for a long time. It is estimated that if you harnessed all the computing power in the world today, it would take more than 40 years to crack 128 bit encoding.

Some of the perceived benefits of Quantum computing, is a dream looking for a problem, where none exists.

[Doodoo]

"70% of academics are off the planet and come up with some ridiculous theories."

I am positive that loads of people thought the same concerning Christopher Columbus way back in the 1490's. But, one must remember that every say 100, 200, 300 failures there maybe one success. So we encourage for others to press on.

[Whistler]

Doodoo, some theories are simply ridiculous. An example,

When Unix was becoming the standard 'open' platform. In a presentation at the Sheraton hotel in Sydnry, Prof Juris Reinfelds presented what is view was for the future of business applications.

Multiple Apple Macs would be connected to a bank of disks, there would be no server, just direct connections. There would be no database, just a stack of text files read sequentially with the business applications running on Macs.

Totally ridiculous, yet this guy was teaching IT. The room was full of industry leaders, we all walked out.

I am all for innovation, I was working with Professor Brooke's and Dr Roger Clarke at NSW University at the time on application development initiatives, two thoroughly practical academics, but some ideas are so obviously nuts, they should be simply be ignored

[Doodoo]

Christopher Columbus I know along with a few Billion others. Professor Brooke's and Dr Roger Clarke dont have a clue who they are

[Whistler]

Christopher Columbus I know along with a few Billion others. Professor Brooke's and Dr Roger Clarke dont have a clue who they are

Can you name them.in alphabetical order doodoo, we may have some common acquaintances

[noosard]

I wonder why they moved on from the abacus since it did not have a problem

[tamada]

True story. Early '80, working on a joint-venture in China where the locals did all their survey computations using the abacus. The American supervisor was frustrated that they weren't using the imported "high-tech" Hewlett-Packard scientific calculators that the state entity had demanded be provided. TBH, the locals were very adept and fast so it was really just the "click-click-click-bang" noise that was upsetting him. The users were almost like touch typists in that they hardly looked at the abacus as they read the numbers from their survey notes and their hand input them on the abacus, only looking at the machine to get the final answer. Then 'bang' to reset the beads.

We thought we were being clever when we went into their office after hours and super-glued different, random pairs of the abacus beads together with the hope of them turning in wrong calculations when compared with the HP ones would force them to use calculators only. Our ignorance of how very, very skilled the Chinese were with the abacus was quickly apparent when they simply knew when they looked at the answer on their abacus that it was wrong. After a few attempts of entering each number and looking as they 'typed' it in the abacus revealed the stuck beads. That caused such a ruckus, it went all the way to the head office in Beijing and the supervisor had to perform a modified 'public humiliation' in that he was sent out to do field work for a month.