this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
223 points (97.4% liked)

Technology

66353 readers
5095 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 23 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Check it, yo. In the 90s all the articles and rumors around quantum computing were exactly the same. Exactly.

Whenever I hear about some new quantum computing breakthrough, I spend about five seconds wondering if it's real and then I feel very nostalgic because no, it never is.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago

I just assume it's in a superposition of both being real and not real at the same time.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 hour ago

If you had asked someone in the 90s if they could imagine half the shit that we have technologically they wouldn’t believe it. Just because something seems surreal, doesn’t mean it’s fake.

Whether this new chip can do the things it claims we’ll see soon enough.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

This is a piece of alleged technology that is based on basic physics that has not been established.

That does sound like a problem.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

I love these slides about how quantum cryptography attacks are a made up scenario https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/bollocks.pdf

Dude is a comedic genius

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Oh I love this!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 hours ago

AI will figure it out my dude!!

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

We should find out next week at APS Global if it's really a problem or a case of Physicist Sergey Frolov, the author of that quote, failing to understand what's been done.

Microsoft could be full of shit about Majorana 1 of course but it would be damned odd for them to make a claim like this without being able to back it up; the fallout would be horrendous.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 hours ago

I have to agree with this. Say what you will about MS, but it'd be odd to claim something this crazy that they can't at least sorta backup.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

It’s…not shocking exactly, but a little surprising and a lot disappointing that so much of finance is now targeted at “let’s make a thing that we read about in sci fi novels we read as kids.”

Focusing on STEM and not the humanities means we have a bunch of engineers who think “book thing cool” and have zero understanding of how allegory works.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

Most competent engineers don't think that. They know and understand the limitations of what they're working on. They just do it because the finance bros pay.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

Elno has just reinforced that if you lie enough to become a billionaire, that the market will reward you for YEARS. Possibly forever of you don’t let them find out your a power hungry amazing who want to ruin the whole country.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 8 hours ago

So glad we dereguled the market so everything is a crypto scam now.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (3 children)

I just saw on Linked In that in 12 months "quantum AI" is going to be where it's at. Uh.... really? Do I hear "crypto-quantum AI?"

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 hours ago

I used a hybrid of near-shore telepresence and on-site scrum sessions to move fast and put the quantum metaverse on a content-addressable de-fi AI blockchain

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

QUANTUM AI? IN my blockchain? It's more likely than you think!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago

Crypto-quantum AI+ MaXX?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Slammed or lightly pounded?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 36 minutes ago
[–] [email protected] 18 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

COME ON AND SLAM

AND WELCOME TO THE JAM

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

You can tell that someone is lying about their work in quantum physics when they claim to understand quantum physics.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Of course. Not a single quantum computer has done anything but test programs and quantum-specific benchmarks. Until a quantum computer finally does something a normal computer regularly does, but faster, we should simply ignore this area.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

until it's better we should simply ignore this

That seems like a strange comment to make. How will it get better if we don't spend the time and effort to make it better?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

With quantum computing if you ignore it you are simultaneously not ignoring it?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago

I don't think so, but yes.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 hours ago