Slashdot Mirror
IBM Gives Everyone Access To Its Five-Qubit Quantum Computer (fortune.com)
An anonymous reader writes: IBM said on Wednesday that it's giving everyone access to one of its quantum computing processors, which can be used to crunch large amounts of data. Anyone can apply through IBM Research's website to test the processor, however, IBM will determine how much access people will have to the processor depending on their technology background -- specifically how knowledgeable they are about quantum technology. With the project being "broadly accessible," IBM hopes more people will be interested in the technology, said Jerry Chow, manager of IBM's experimental quantum computing group. Users can interact with the quantum processor through the Internet, even though the chip is stored at IBM's research center in Yorktown Heights, New York, in a complex refrigeration system that keeps the chip cooled near absolute zero.
They still make hardware?
And IBM will also give no one access to its Five-Qubit Quantum Computer?
Five qubits? According to understanding of quantum computing, which I got by reading two seconds of various Wired articles before the paywall kicked in, that means that this amazing machine is capable of storing every value between 0 and 31 simultaneously!
which are more equal than others
Users can interact with thing through the Internet, even though the thing is stored at location.
Wow! What an amazing application of the Internet!
1) You have to apply .. preferably in quantum computing
2) You have to have a solid background in technology..
3)
Sounds a lot more like "IBM will consider granting access to quantum computing scholars"
What's with the wildly inaccurate and misleading titles on slashdot lately?
....'was impressed by the machine and said the quantum processor gave the right answer âoea little more than a third of the timeâ for a certain calculation he tried.'
So what, we've invented a machine that guesses badly?
Yay progress or something!
WATSON = 5 letters
IBM quantum computer = 5 qubits
Coincidence? I think NOT!
They're restricting access to those who are already extremely interested, and perhaps invested in quantum computing. How does that promote interest?
what does a program look like
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Access to one quantum processor is great and all, but how many cores does it give me access to?
Quantum computing is next to useless if you're just computing elementary algebra because the answer is definitively known. As a matter of fact, I thought they still offload these kinds of operations to co-processors because they are still either incapable or dramatically inferior at doing them. On the other hand, if you're doing something more involved like mapping a function on a chart, then having the entire range of answers "instantly" available is far more useful. Imagine not having to worry about stack heap exhaustion, or recursion depth limit BS; you would have code that actually did what you tell it to without having to resort to hackish ad-hoc douche-baggary with a full paragraph of comments begging your successor for their forgiveness. Of course we're knocking our selves back to 1975 in terms of programming languages and destroying every advancement we've ever made in encryption by doing all of this, but quantum entanglement should make encryption obsolete anyway.
And not a penny more!
So They Can Learn From (steal) Your Ideas
Each time the add a qbit, the power needs of the refrigeration doubles.
This is why quantum computers can't beat classical computers. The energy expended to maintain a low enough entropy environment to do real work grows exponentially.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
>destroying every advancement we've ever made in encryption by doing all of this
No. Just RSA and DH. Key sizes may need to double on some other algorithms.
Quantum resistant public key systems exist E.G. NTRU. Ones that don't suck are a pipe dream right now.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Do we need to provide our own cups of really hot fresh tea?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
No, the only possible answer for 2+2 is 4. This is true - no matter how many semantics games you try to play. I have to run off for a while so you'll have to rely on the 'net for your answer but it's easy to find. 1+1 is never 3. Nor is 2+2 ever 5. The number 2 represents an integer, which is 2. Rounding does not matter - because the integer is 2. It is not 2.4 + 2.2 and then rounded to 5. It is 2+2 and only 2+2.
You can trust me on this. If the computer tells you anything else, it is broken or you input the wrong information.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Also, ones as thoroughly vetted as RSA and DH.
Shared secret cryptography is still pretty much safe given current best practices if your shared secret is managed well.
While key sizes are effectively halved, most of those algorithms are already more than twice as long as would practically be risky.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
The whole reason for public access to a real quantum computer is to get experience with it. Quantum computing will never supplant classical computing for everything - it will be used when it is appropriate.
The problem is quantum computing is quite unlike classical computing, and experience with any form of it is limited to a very narrow population - those who can afford the power, cooling and other hardware necessary to run a quantum computer today. What IBM has done is to provide access - 5 qubits isn't a lot, but it's close to state of the art and it's extremely limited, which is a good thing if you want to try to wrap your head around it.
Chances are, IBM's trying to scout for talent as well as see what's possible - perhaps the next big thing to happen comes from someone messing around with the machine who otherwise wouldn't have gotten access to it. This could come in the form of improved algorithms, improved ways to increase stability, decrease errors, etc.
You're not running classical algorithms on it with defined results, you're really playing around trying to experience what quantum computing is like, and I'm sure IBM is doing it to broaden the field a little bit.
And really, RSA and HD aren't falling yet because this thing is only 5 qubits. Both require extremely long keys in order to keep factorization a slow process.
This computer is too small to handle current recommended keys (RSA-2048+), and roughly speaking to break RSA you need an equivalently big quantum computer in order to factor those numbers.
It is extremely hard to add qubits to a quantum computer - that's the limiting factor right now. Each additional qubit takes excessively more power and cooling and shortens decoherence time (the amount of time you have to run your algorithm before it literally all falls apart).
>Also, ones as thoroughly vetted as RSA and DH.
Yes. Welcome to my day job. God I hate quantum computer hype.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
And I would read the EULA very, very, very carefully.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
But what about all the sites running 5 bit RSA keys? They are no longer safe! They need to hurry and switch to another scheme, what other alternative would they have.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.