IBM Gives Everyone Access To Its Five-Qubit Quantum Computer (fortune.com) 84
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.
IBM (Score:2)
They still make hardware?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
I thought they got out of hardware when deployment stopped involving a fork lift
There was this thing called the 5150.....
Re:IBM (Score:5, Informative)
Guess you haven't bought a mainframe lately. That market is doing extremely well.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Would someone tell me how this happened? We were the fucking vanguard of computing in this country. The IBM 360 was the mainframe to rent. Then the other guy came out with a three-qubit computer. Were we scared? Hell, no. Because we hit back with a little thing called the IBM 370. That's thirty-two bits and an a DASD storage array. For databases. But you know what happened next? Shut up, I'm telling you what happened—the bastards went to four qubits. Now we're standing around with our cocks in our han
The magic of Quantum (Score:5, Funny)
And IBM will also give no one access to its Five-Qubit Quantum Computer?
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not certain about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried just looking?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The magic of Quantum (Score:2)
Don't be naive. Clearly this computer operates on the same principle as quatum bogosort. It's a universe destroying death ray.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a shame. I really need a factorisation of 15. Well, one that is approximately correct to a degrer of accuracy. Wonder which of the three quantum algorithms people will try on this thing.
Re: (Score:2)
My application for some user-time is now entangled in their system.
count {all | some | none | any} the things (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On Wired, just use the old right-click -> 'Print' trick. Then read the print preview. Gets around the paywall quite nicely.
what does a quantum algorithm look like? (Score:2)
what does a program look like
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The ones I've seen any detail on behave like a finite state machine, except that the state retains all possible positions from the full range of inputs as modified to that point of the algorithm and a 50% chance of entering an error flow that results in an incorrect answer. Fortunately, the incorrect answer is not consistent, so if the algorithm does have a consistent correct answer it will be the most common answer after multiple executions.
Once your sequence of parallel finite state analyses gives you a
Re: (Score:2)
what does a program look like
Well, I'd show you, but that would change the algorithm.
You will have to determine it on your own. :-P
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
File -> Save As -> article.html, then read the local copy. Everything works -- styles, images, etc. -- but you won't get the ad-blocking-blocking overlay.
Now finish reading TFA and post your full findings here. :D
Re: (Score:1)
IBM will determine (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Even though (Score:4, Funny)
Users can interact with thing through the Internet, even though the thing is stored at location.
Wow! What an amazing application of the Internet!
Doesn't sound like "Everyone" to me (Score:1)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
What's with the wildly inaccurate and misleading titles on slashdot lately?
You Must Be New Here.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That set you off, but "crunch large amounts of data" didn't?
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
>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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
>Also, ones as thoroughly vetted as RSA and DH.
Yes. Welcome to my day job. God I hate quantum computer hype.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Umm... (Score:1)
....'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!
Re: (Score:1)
My god, we've invented a technology journalist.
Or, rather, any journalist.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought IBM had improved the weather reporters.
W A T S O N (Score:5, Funny)
IBM quantum computer = 5 qubits
Coincidence? I think NOT!
Re:W A T S O N (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, you can't just let it go at that. You gotta make up a good excuse - blame it on Iranian hackers or something. Or, better yet, insist it is correct due to some esoteric quantum function. You can't just leave us hanging. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Promoting interest by restricting access (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
How many cores though... (Score:2)
Access to one quantum processor is great and all, but how many cores does it give me access to?
I'll give them two bits five quibits (Score:2)
So They Can Learn From (steal) Your Ideas (Score:1)
Refridgeration (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The energy expended to maintain a low enough entropy environment to do real work grows exponentially.
/. since days, if not weeks.
That is the biggest nonsense on
Re: (Score:2)
The energy expended to maintain a low enough entropy environment to do real work grows exponentially.
/. since days, if not weeks.
That is the biggest nonsense on
Are you unfamiliar with thermodynamics? A fridge gets to be cold on the inside by increasing entropy more on the outside than it reduces it on the inside. That's the heat coming off the back.
If you made it colder on the inside you would be sucking more power and emitting more heat on the outside.
If you want to entangle 10 qbits, it needs to be colder than it would be to entangle 5.
You can figure the rest from there.
Go look at the IBM's website showing the inside of the lab. It's a tiny chip and lab full of
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to entangle 10 qbits, it needs to be colder than it would be to entangle 5.
No it would not, the temperature is exactly the same.
And the devices in question are so small that the energy to cool it is neglectible.
Even if you had a million qbits there would not be a single watt difference.
Re: (Score:2)
So why are there so few qbits in quantum computers? Why is the refrigeration system so huge?
If what you said was true they would just throw in an extra 250 qbits and break Diffie Helman.
Re: (Score:2)
The refrigerator is huge because it cools the equipment down to very low temperatures.
More qbits are right now nit possible as we can not address them without disturbing the others.
But I guess in 10 years already we might have quantum computers with a dozen qbits or so.
Keep in mind the pictures you see are a research lab, and not a finished product, which will be as small as a laptop.
Do we need to provide (Score:2)
Hmmm (Score:2)