Oh wow, it’s odd that only those are showing. Admittedly I’ve been kind of lax about making the weekly threads, but there’s certainly a lot more than four in the last two years!

As someone who runs a discussion community, !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca

I get this every time I have to play devil’s advocate. People get SO DAMN MAD on here despite their poorly argued positions…

People barely know why they believe something, let alone why someone else should believe the same.

Something I’ve always requested when anybody asked what I wanted for a gift, (and only got once from somebody who went on to be my wife) was a hand-written letter.

As somebody who buys the things I require whenever I require them, it’s something so much more personal than damn near anything else.

Edit: I gave her a box of secrets. Basically I wrote a bunch of lines or paragraphs on pieces of paper that I don’t like to talk about or have trouble expressing. The only caveat was that she could only read one per day and only when she’s not having a great day.

This is backwards from what all of this was intended to be in the first place. Making or buying something for people you care about is supposed to be fun, not a chore to begin with.

The goal has never been to outsource thinking about your loved ones to a fucking AI. This is disgusting.

Oh, is that where the word bussy comes from.

/s

Bad title. He’s criticizing the state of free speech in America citing the Jimmy Kimmel cancellation and people fired / cancelled over Charlie Kirk speech.

I’ve had it fail to load a lot of stuff today. Something’s definitely up.

My insane conspiracy theorist mother in law would love this.

Sadly.

That’s fair, but comics like the above (which are endemic to this sub) aren’t about the extremes and are about standard human behaviours.

It’d be like someone seeing me double check the door lock at my house and saying “You must have OCD.”

I also find it mildly concerning that someone may see these memes / comics and self-diagnose themselves with a mental illness that they do not have since self-diagnosis (and wanting to belong to a group) is a massive issue in the internet age.

That’s been my exact response. So many things here are just… normal human behaviours.

You sound exactly like the kind of person I want in my community: !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca

Check the sidebar to see if it suits you too!

You sound exactly like the kind of person I want in my community: !actual_discussion@lemmy.ca

Check the sidebar to see if it suits you too!

The part that doesn’t make sense is how a guess on a QC in a binary is any better than a scientist just guessing an outcome from a binary. Yeah, it can do it a lot, but if you can’t test the outcome to verify if it’s correct or not, how is it better than any other way of guessing outcomes?

Statistically, it absolutely isn’t. Even if it continually narrows things down via guesses, it’s still no more valuable than any other guesses. Because in all the whitepapers I’ve seen, it’s not calculating anything because it can’t. It’s simply assuming that one option is correct.

In the real world, it’s not a calculation and it doesn’t assist in… anything really. It’s no better than a random number generator assigning those numbers to a result. I don’t get the utility other than potentially breaking numerical cryptography.

So that’s the part that gets me stuck. There is no clear answer and it has no way to check the result as QC aren’t capable of doing so (otherwise they wouldn’t be using QC since they can only be based on binary inputs and binary guesses of true / false outcomes on a massive scale). How can it decide that it is “correct” and that the task is completed?

Computations based on guesses of true / false can only be so accurate with no way to check the result in the moment.

I appreciate the reply!

I made the attempt, but couldn’t parse that first link. I gathered that it was about error correction due to the absolutely massive number of them that crop up in QC, but I admit that I can’t get much further with it as the industry language is thick on that paper. Error reduction is good, but it still isn’t on any viable data, and it’s still a massive amount of errors even post-correction. It’s more of a small refinement to an existing questionable system, which is okay, but doesn’t really do much unless I’m misunderstanding.

The Willow (and others) examples I’m skeptical on. We already have different types of chips for different kinds of operations, such as CPUs, GPUs, NPUs, etc. This is just one more kind of chip that will be found in computers of the future. Of course, these can sometimes be combined into a single chip too, but you get the idea.

The factorization of integers is one operation that is simple on a quantum computer. Since that is an essential part of public / private key cryptography, those encryption schemes have been recently upgraded with algorithms that a quantum computer cannot so easily unravel.

With quantum computing, a system of qubits can be set up in such a way that it’s like a machine that physically simulates the problem. It runs this experiment over and over again and measures the outcome, until one answer is the clear winner. For the right type of problem, and with enough qubits, this is unbelievably fast.

Problem is, this only works for systems that have a known answer (like cryptography) with a verifiable result, otherwise the system never knows when the equation is “complete”. It’s also of note that none of these organizations are publishing their benchmarking algorithms so when they talk about speed, they aren’t exactly being forthright. I can write code that runs faster on an Apple 2e than a modern x64 processor, doesn’t mean the Apple 2e is faster. Then factor in how fast quantum systems degrade and it’s… not really useful in power expenditure or financially to do much beyond a large corporation or government breaking encryption.

Well, I love being wrong! Are you able to show a documented quantum experiment that was carried out on a quantum computer (and not an emulator using a traditional architecture)?

How about a use case that isn’t simply for breaking encryption, benchmarking, or something deeply theoretical that they have no way to know how to actually program for or use in the real world?

I’m not requesting these proofs to be snarky, but simply because I’ve never seen anything else beyond what I listed.

When I see all the large corporations mentioning the processing power of these things, they’re simply mentioning how many times they can get an emulated tied bit to flip, and then claiming grandiose things for investors. That’s pretty much it. To me, that’s fraudulent (or borderline) corporate BS.

Yeah, most quantum science at the moment is largely fraudulent. It’s not just Microsoft. It’s being developed because it’s being taught in business schools as the next big thing, not because anybody has any way to use it.

Any of the “quantum computers” you see in the news are nothing more than press releases about corporate emulators functioning how they think it might work if it did work, but it’s far too slow to be used for anything.

I’ve gone to my community and to specific posts, but can’t work out how to show downvotes. Can you shed a little light on how to see them please?

Yeah, that’s what I do as well. Seems much nicer than hurting their community by just randomly downvoting everything I don’t want to see.