I heard a cybersecurity guy say: "quantum computer will eventually destroy rsa but all that would do is force people to switch to an algorithm that is hard to run for quantum computers" and it made me less stressed about the issue
you shouldnt be stressed about it anyway. Smart people will solve any issues caused by it, which will trickle down to us less smart people. its a non-issue.
@@chuck600 this is true, and some companies have already switched to future proof algorithms, but the issue is that current communications using outdated algorithms can still be saved by bad actors and then pushed through a quantum computer year in the future. So anything we send across the Internet right now could potentially be saved and stored somewhere until there's enough computing power to break it open
Where are you going after you die? What happens next? Have you ever thought about that? Repent today and give your life to Jesus Christ to obtain eternal salvation. Tomorrow may be too late my brethen😢. Hebrews 9:27 says "And as it is appointed unto man once to die, but after that the judgement
@@JesusPlsSaveMe Thanks no thanks. Your God, should he be real, would be nothing but a blackmailing narcissist forcing you to either serve him or suffer. I'd rather return to dust than live with him.
Step 1: Make useless technology. Step 2: Come up with way to make insane weapon with previously useless technology. Step 3: Once everyone else has said weapon, maybe release to the public so they can come up with useful/helpful things to do with the technology.
True, encryption algorithms difficult for even quantum computer are already well-known and being implemented by most state actors right now. The issue is about all the old classified data that has military and financial information that will still be relevant years from now that was encrypted when people thought classical encrpytion would be invinsible, which is being hoarded and stored in hard drives until they can be decrypted.
This has some truth, but it is not entirely true. Have you ever studied number theory? There are reasons mathematicians are worried and yet excited about this. Encryptions are typically based upon complex mathematical principals that are difficult to calculate with known algorithms using classical computing power. The time to brute force was generally measured by the time to scale compute power or solve a derivative algorithm that would make it simpler. For example, factoring large numbers. The current mitigation for quantum does involve scaling up the size and security protections of the keys, but this will only work for so long. We ultimately require new mathematical concepts implemented by cryptographers that would be difficult for both classical and quantum computers to break. There are some articles on this you can read up on, but it's entirely plausible those concepts could be short lived for such a technology, and at this time - do NOT exist.
only applies to the companies/nations that have quantum computers, i can't afford a near zero temperature room to cool my quantum labtop in, or my quantum phone for that matter. the worst part about quantum computing, is me being one of billions to be targeted as a safety like it is now doesn't work anymore cause these computers could hit everyone in a short amount of time with its exponentially faster processing time.
Quantum computers are like cats in boxes-they're either solving the world's hardest problems or doing absolutely nothing, and we won’t know until we check!
For real, usually I'm a fan but this video was such a miss. Not only low-effort (e.g. "a" and "b" instead of "alpha" and "beta", "cubits" instead of "qubits") but also falling into the QC hype and misrepresenting how quantum algorithms actually work. "Wikipedia introduction" is the perfect way to put it.
You're basically describing every "current event" tuber lmao, he's just brief about it to the point where it's actually efficient to watch instead of seeing crit1kal act like a clown when discussing it, or some doombait tuber telling you the world is ending for real this time
Willow can solve ONE problem septiliian times faster than a supercomputer. And that problem is a quantum computing specific one. Kind of silly to generalize and say Willow is Septillian times faster than El Capitan when it's infinitely better at everything else.
Right. Even when they start being useful, for the foreseeable future I strongly suspect quantum computers will only be _really_ useful for simulating quantum physics. And speaking as someone with a physics background, that'll be pretty cool by itself. But we're not about to get "Quantum GPUs" or quantum mobile phones and they wouldn't be good for much even if we did. tl;dr If you only take one thing away from this video let it be this: quantum computers are NOT SIMPLY MUCH FASTER CLASSICAL COMPUTERS !
isn't schroedinger's cat supposed to be a *critique* of the idea of quantum superpositions though? like the thought experiment is supposed to make you go "obviously the cat is *either* dead or alive, you just don't know which yet because you haven't checked. it is not both 'dead and alive', nor is it 'neither dead nor alive', you not knowing which it is changes nothing about reality"
I wouldn't call it a critique; it's more how non-intuitive physics can get at atomic scales, so that you cannot apply usual day-to-day physical intuition in the quantum level. You would agree it would be absurd for me to say that the cat is dead *and* alive but it does not become absurd if I say that a qubit is both in the 0 and 1 position.
@@4kills482 Not unaffected, but affected much, much less. Grover's algorithm requires you to double the number of bits to get the same security against brute force attacks, but that's a very easy mitigation.
The 20 ish years between quantum computing going mainstream and money becoming useless after everything becomes autonamous through AI and robotics is going to really suck
Money can't become useless as it is simply currency, no organized thing can function without some form of currency exchange. If anything the currency will simply be different from money, but will function pretty much the same.
It's really not that hard to introduce security measures for this. It'll just need an update to all security things. Computers from decaes ago likely couldn't hold up security wise against computers of today, it's not absurd to expect new transitions like this every few decades as tech increases.
Right. We just need to update all encryption globally and we'll be fine :). (you're not _wrong_ BTW, in fact that's what we're already doing in implementing "quantum safe" encryption schemes, it just tickles me when people try to make a gargantuan task appear super easy by simply _stating_ things like "It's really not that hard..." :)
@@anonymes2884 I mean, in a sense, it really isn't. Computers are an incredibly volotile technology, with new risks, vulnerabilities, and patches appearing on the daily. It was just a matter of time until someone figured out how to make all previous security irrelevent. I am very familiar with what's required on the subject, I am also very familiar with similar situations. Everyone freaks out and throws a fit saying the world will end, and then the actual people doing the work impliment fixes, and most things go as planned. Sure, a bunch of systems will be vulnerable to anyone with millions to throw at the problem, but thats really already the case. We just know what and where the vulnerability is this time. think of the year 2000, a good chunk of people believed all computers were going to just crap themselves. But with some smart thinking it was handled pretty alright. TLDR: Meh, just another decade in typical computing.
It would be kind of funny if we have to start sending one time pads by physical, old-time mail to protect from quantum decryption😂 "Here's 500TB of one time pads on SD-cards, should cover the next few months of communication!"
I'm still waiting for a cryptanalyst to publicly break my novel encrypt-gib symmetric algo which, instead of XORing streams after confusion, instead uses the round function to create JIT 1-time pads to then create the ciphertext. All I get from them is "trust me bro" nonsense. The efficiency gain is in simplicity with the cost of key and storage size. But simplicity gain is huge.
@@ibgib Do you have a link to the repo/white paper? Not a cryptologist just curious about the use of JIT OTP's, quick google search just brings results for RSA/AES
@waldolemmer a and α are only as different as foo and bar. Variables don't mean anything when not in context, neither in math, nor in computing, nor in any other form of science. I can call schrödingers wave function Y instead of Ψ and nothing would change as long as we both knew what I was talking about.
@@kzone674quantum effects are less observable at scale this makes perfect sense to me. You are probably still trying to think of things in terms of classical physics
@@Sleight-l4y no, quite the opposite quantum effects are VERY significant at this scale, it is a known result from the modeling and theory of the first quantum circuits that error rates increase with size of qubits (or the respective dimension of the Hilbert space). If there is one thing that going quantum has taught us is that you always have a degree of uncertainty when measuring a given observable, and loosely speaking, composite observables means more degrees of uncertainty (and I'm sure there's an argument here regarding to entropy and the increasing of accessible states of a system). They could've somehow came up with a novel error mitigation method but I confess I did not read the article (I hope they did :) )
Offline encryption that doesn’t have sufficient security to prevent brute force attacks will be o7 when they release this but everything else is fine. People are freaking out of nothing.
Fun Fact: A group of Minecraft players managed to create a supercomputer that was stronger that the supercomputer used in US Navy operations… just to find a really tall cactus.
"These chips need to be kept at temperatures near absolute zero" is the absolute deal breaker, now I no longer believe in the future of quantum computing.
the scariest thing is not about future communications being compromised. the scary shit is when all the collected/intercepted data can be decrypted at will.
yeah thats the real issue...i cant wait for the first time somebody runs for office somewhere in the world and somebody else whips out the now decrypted group chat messages they intercepted when the first person was 15...wont that just be lovely?
@@WoolyCow pff, that's childs play. I'm more so concerned about top secret correspondence between presidents and their generals or whatnot. Also, all the passwords that have ever been will be out there, so you better hope that you have 2fa
@@riddixdan5572 jokes on them my password was 'qwertu' all along...no brute force, quantum or otherwise, could ever figure out my genius scheme of skipping a letter
In 2019 they said their Quantum Computer did a calculation that would take a normal computer 10,000 years to do. Then a short time later someone did the same calculation in the same amount of time that it took the Quantum Computer to do it. And if you read the new paper from Google they are expecting something similar this time too
It’s amusing how any time the world discusses a milestone achieved by China, the word “scary” seems to be a go-to descriptor. It’s as if there’s some unspoken script everyone’s following!
Yeah our masters really want us to be afraid of China. Unlike with local problems where we know our political superstructure is lying to us, we don't really have any other point of contact with people on the other side of the world so those claims easily go unchallenged.
Tbf, In China. You can get arrested of you compare Xi to a beloved children cartoon bear (which it's more insulting to the cartoon bear, imo). Where anywhere else, people can compare their leader to horse fecal matter and get a way with it.
1:39 I also made mistake for so long about "How Classical Computer AKSHUALLY~🤓Compute", but today I'll make it straight. CC using Logic to compute NOT use Binary! Binary is the logical state/Address value/Numbers/Math on Computer/Cyber world. Logic(Boolean) And all it's operands are the "Command" of all process, simply if it's in math it's called "Order of Operations"/PEMDAS 👈WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT and also can be FATAL if mistranslated/misunderstood by Brainware, Hardware or even by the Software. Logic in CC is still YES or NO aka "Binary Logic" and until today we understood it. In other hand~ Quantum computer is use "Hadamard Gate"(...actually still Idk wtf is this) which can be a true depiction for quantum logic or just still an inadequate example for Order of Operation for Quantum process/math. So what's the concern? Well there's such thing like "catch" in QC. Their logic consist by Maybe and All-be(All can Maybe) to process a single simple question. Picture a Venn diagram, you see inside the space/square limit there is two circle overlapped and area cross section of it. CC using only those cross section but QC use literally both individual circles as a "Maybe" and outer space/square limit/entire area of chalkboard as "All-be". As you can see those kind of absurd to picture BUT for QC that's the probability which still basically as Yes/No solution. For short I quote Richard Feynman, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics". Yes, Maybe~
Holy shit, these automatic Audio Translations are terrifying - every once in a while youtube just jumpscares me with this AI Voice screaming at me in an unexpressive tone^^
1:01 It's on December 10, 2024 (Jumada al-Akhir 8, 1446 AH) and you're watching Fireship Videos about Google's New Computing Chip on the Code Report Series.
Hm so quantum computers are gonna be supercomputers only available for giant corporations and governments, and can (probably) never be scaled down to be available for consumers?
Probably good to mention: you don't have to be afraid that quantum computers will be available any time soon to any 13 year old hacker who wants them. That problem that was mentioned in the video about those chips needing to be really, really, really, seriously really cold is fundamental to quantum computers. And you can't draw a parallel with the progress of binary computers. That necessity for cold is a physics problem, not a computer science problem, so the logic of "this will gradually improve" doesn't apply in the same way as with traditional computers. Meaning that for the foreseeable future, the electricity bill is and will remain darn near unaffordable. It's why typically only megacorporations, governments and colab academic institutions have them. So to make quantum computers feasable for consumers, we first need to discover completely new quantum physics theorems, or finally invent one of them room-temperature superconductors (and despite someone claiming too have invented one every 5 years or so, progress in that area still isn't looking very hopeful so far).
also, post-quantum encryption algorithms have already been invented, and it's not like you need a quantum computer to run them. They work fine on classical computers.
Well, yes and no. There are other types of quantum computing hardware which _don't_ use superconductors (e.g. trapped ion qubits) so those hard limits only apply to this particular approach. But regardless, it's still true that, as far as we can tell, quantum computers (and Shor's algorithm) only help break encryption that depends on factoring large numbers and we're _already_ moving away (albeit slowly) from that type of encryption. So by the time quantum computers _are_ widely available, IF that ever happens (either via other hardware/materials science advances or sure, much more excitingly IMO but also _much_ less likely, new physics), it _should_ be mostly irrelevant for day to day encryption anyway (though _stored_ data using factoring style encryption _will_ still be crackable - it's widely believed in security circles that various entities are hoovering up and storing vast quantities of encrypted data _now_ in the hopes that _future_ quantum computers will allow them to break it _and_ at least some of the information will still be useful).
@The_Loose_Spirit: Dear God yes. That is not to say I don't believe governments can be evil. But have you ever met 13 year old hacker boys? That is a pretty high evilness bar to clear.
The coolest part about q-computing isn't even the computing power, as that is heavily task dependent. And the 2 most "powerful" computing methods that produce these outrageous results have roughly 50% chance of giving you wrong answer even if there is no error in the computation. So you always have to check the result some other way. The cool thing is that each entangled q-bit acts as a cache/ram too, storing data till function collapses. And that grows exponentially with more entangled q-bits. So there could be chips that have petabytes of onboard ram in the future.
Brute forcing can have other defences though, such as you know, not giving them enough tries to brute force it... (Obviously this isn't always the case but for a lot of things, adding a timer to how many attempts you get renders the speed of the computer useless, so brute forcing is just as bad as it always was) Correct me if I'm wrong though
there's better defences, like just using a better algorithm. post-quantum encryption algorithms have already been invented that make it as hard for a quantum computer to crack it as it is for a classical computer to crack current encryption algorithms
thats not the point. the entire purpose of HTTPS is that even if someone intercepts your traffic they can't steal/see your data because it is encrypted in a way which cannot be undone within a reasonable time frame. with these theoretical quantum computers if they intercept your traffic, they can crack it and see your passwords, data, or literally anything and everything you do on the internet
I love quantum computers. They're actually something adjacent to what I will be getting my Ph.D. in. The biggest upgrade with quantum that states can have phase shifts, and so can interfere with other states using quantum logic gates to increase the probability of measuring a state you would want to find.
Vast majority of people: Rise of quantum computing plus rise of AI will create the Matrix by 2030. Person who actually knows something about IT: Can you please tell me what Quantum computers actually do? Vast majority of people: Error 404
Did you start to outsource your video editing? At 3:36, the text shows "cubit" on the screen. I believe it was not deliberate from your side? Or was it?
0:25 why do they keep on saying "more years than the age of the universe"? That's a bit like saying "the area of Siberia is bigger than a grain of sand" - technically true, but completely misses the scale comparison. The number of years they're saying - 10^25 - is more than the age of the universe by a factor of 10^16! EVERYONE - PLEASE REFERRING TO "THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE"!!
I don't think the intention is to give a sense of relative scale, but rather just to establish that the whole history of the universe could have passed and it would still be processing.
3:25 slight correction (because of google lying in the marketing blog) they achieved ~60 mu-s, not 100, although the 5 times more figure is what they mentioned. this is there in the blog too, just the heading of the topic says 100 mu-s
PSA: Quantum computing does not "solve all problems by trying all possibilities in different parallel universes till it finds one where you become batman and solve it and beam it back across timelines to yourself". In other words, quantum computers don't turn you into batman, and won't solve your problems for you. They break RSA cryptography, but when most cryptography is post-quantum, it's genuinely a fascinating problem as to what other useful problems they can help in speeding up. Perhaps those with more experience could help by stating some problems. I'll start: I know it speeds up unstructured search, but I don't know how it translates to speeding up a full algorithm for a useful problem. Edit: Please also give references, it would be really helpful (to me mostly, but I imagine to humanity in general as well).
There's a few things, but generally there isn't much that appears in quantum that doesn't have a classical analogue that can run at higher speeds or similar (just because of gate speed). Some stuff that you may not know, a lot of advanced radio communication algorithms work well, a lot of scheduling/routing/floor-planning, weird finance stuff like crazy fast complicated arbitrage pathways or sharpe ratio optimization... so it's a lot of weird stuff that we generally do without but if we had an answer it revolutionize enormous industries by solving that specific problem - which is why people piss away billions funding it.
@@whatisrokosbasilisk80 Very interesting! A quick search showed some papers (from IBM quantum) that showed how some scheduling works better `in practice'. Are these what you're talking about? Or do you mean there are faster quantum algorithms for some of these problems?
> Break encryption the only encryption scheme vulnerable to quantum computers is RSA. and people already dumped it to switch to a quantum resistant encryption schemes
I saw a quantum computing expert on nottingham university's youtube describe quantum computers as magic boxes that spit out results without any understanding of the inner working. Didn't make sense to me, you can't build something like that to begin with and even if you somehow could you could never treat its output as correct as you couldn't work backwards to validate it.
There are problems that are VERY hard to brute force, but very easy to verify a solution to. Factoring large prime numbers is an obvious example. You can just multiply the two output numbers together and check that it equals the original number.
@@ayybe7894 You misunderstand. If you do have a "magical box" that spits out the right answer all of the time, while you can verify that each answer it produces is correct you can never actually trust any answer it gives because you don't know how it reached that answer, and the only way you could then tell if any new answer is correct is by working through it in a normal way which then takes as long or longer. That's what doesn't make sense to me, if you even could make a system that works in that way (no idea) you'd never be safe to trust it and so it would be pointless.
@@mchammer5026 You say oversimplified and not simply wrong. I know nothing about the subject beyond a little bit of pop-sci channel stuff occasionally. What makes you say oversimplified?
@jimmydesouza4375 it's not like it's a black box in the sense that we don't understand what's going on. it's a black box in the sense that you can't go in mid-calculation and check what state it is in (as you would for a debugger in a classical program). the claim that you can't verify the answers also only applies to a subset of problems. many problems are such that it's hard to find a solution, but easy to verify once you have a candidate solution. @ayybe7894 gave the very good (if obvious) example of factoring numbers. say the task you're interested in is factoring big numbers. you have a number, you want to know its factors. doing this on a classical computer is hard. so hard we base encryption on it. doing it on quantum hardware is "easy". once you have the quantum hardware, you ask it "what are the factors of this big number?" and it gives you two factors (well it actually only gives you one but that's details). it's easy to check if those are actually the factors. if not, you ask it again, until, when you multiply the numbers it gives you, you get your original number back. problem solved.
Shor's algorithm was mentioned!!!! Having a P-time (and a relitively fast one at that) solver for prime favtorization is huge. Doesn't prove NP-Completeness but may make the church turring thesis inacurate if we can not find a P-time translation for quatum computers but have P-time algorithms that in exponental time on a non-quantum computers. Still a ways out but finally I get to nerd out about computability and complexity theory in a quantum setting, good things to fall asleep to tbh.
I should note that everyone has long been preparing for this to happen and the introduction of available quantum computers won't actually have much effect on encryption and internet communication, if any.
That is so not true. Many modern encryption techniques aren't even quantum-computing proof, and that's not even discussing the amount of legacy code in use today
@@StepwaveMusic Legacy code always has and will be a problem, regardless of quantum computing. As for the "modern encryption techniques", people foresaw this problem decades in advance. There's even a whole thing with governments and other entities storing data for the sole purpose of being able to decrypt them when they get access to sufficient quantum computing. That's not to say that poor practices aren't going to screw us over, but in principle everything necessary has already been researched, developed, and even largely implemented.
Like maybe you were going for "more elementary particles in the universe"? (10^~85; even then 10^25 v 10^85 is a wild comparison. We're sooooo bad at conceptualizing exponentiation. Not trying to rag on you. You're my favorite.)
@@sinancemyucel4644 Most encryptions (can't talk about much of it, so its solely word of mouth type stuff) are backdoored by the NSA, the NSA will either threaten encryption developers into backdooring their protocols or just backdoor it themselves, the NSA has skeleton keys for some of the protocols. Sounds like a conspiracy theory I know, but work with the DoD and get the right clearances and you could gain access to that shit. Pretty much any country is trying to backdoor protocols constantly. China, Russia, etc... but the issue is most protocols are US-made. some companies are also US-made, Oracle is a government project be surprised (yes the company that made Java).
1:123:47 It's a common misconception quantum computers can "Brute force" all your encryption algorithms because they are faster, but that's not true. Quantum computers are significantly slower, so are even worse at brute force, they just have available some special algorithms like shor's, that lets them not NEED to brute force like a classical computer would. They are only useful because they have very specific algorithms available that happen to solve the very specific problem used in RSA and ECC encryption. But there are plenty of problems they don't have algorithms to solve, like crystal-lattice encryption.
Willow calculates in parallel universes, yet Chrome still eats all your RAM in every single one.
Clever idea on that channel...
And constantly calls home to 1e100 goog servers just like firefox
@@dertythegrower a googol google servers?
"It is a septillion times faster than normal CPUs!"
At doing what?
"Simulating quantum computer circuits...."
Oh.
Real
This will take "it works on my machine" to a whole new level.
@@TotoAndrei Dockerize the chip and the programmer man ! What are u noob
there is a possibility that it works on my machine*
@@rijumondal6876 But if he is on Windows, his WSL2 image is just going to collapse into a singularity anyway. 🚀
Flaky tests will get worst?
@@rijumondal6876 nah, just entangle a spun up parallel universe
TempleOS remains unaffected.
And protected from the glownig-
Just like Toyota
IBM Quantum System Two cries in the corner
feeble technological creations of man can never dream of matching the holy divinity of templeOS, the OS of God.
@@rj7250a
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. Turn to him and repent from your sins today ❤️
I heard a cybersecurity guy say: "quantum computer will eventually destroy rsa but all that would do is force people to switch to an algorithm that is hard to run for quantum computers" and it made me less stressed about the issue
you shouldnt be stressed about it anyway.
Smart people will solve any issues caused by it, which will trickle down to us less smart people. its a non-issue.
@@selectionnwho smart people 😂😂😂😂😂😂 ....
iirc there are already encryption algorithms that are quantum-resistant
@@chuck600 this is true, and some companies have already switched to future proof algorithms, but the issue is that current communications using outdated algorithms can still be saved by bad actors and then pushed through a quantum computer year in the future. So anything we send across the Internet right now could potentially be saved and stored somewhere until there's enough computing power to break it open
in other words "don't worry about it bro trust me"
Being able to do useless work so quickly is my favorite thing about quantum computers
Where are you going after you die?
What happens next? Have you ever thought about that?
Repent today and give your life to Jesus Christ to obtain eternal salvation. Tomorrow may be too late my brethen😢.
Hebrews 9:27 says "And as it is appointed unto man once to die, but after that the judgement
@@JesusPlsSaveMe Thanks no thanks. Your God, should he be real, would be nothing but a blackmailing narcissist forcing you to either serve him or suffer. I'd rather return to dust than live with him.
Step 1: Make useless technology.
Step 2: Come up with way to make insane weapon with previously useless technology.
Step 3: Once everyone else has said weapon, maybe release to the public so they can come up with useful/helpful things to do with the technology.
@@JesusPlsSaveMe
An afterlife zealot.
I thought that's what UA-cam was for!
The computational ability to break encryption is also the computational ability to improve encryption which has been the case the entire time.
yeah but then you have to spend a shit ton of money changing decades old code
True, encryption algorithms difficult for even quantum computer are already well-known and being implemented by most state actors right now. The issue is about all the old classified data that has military and financial information that will still be relevant years from now that was encrypted when people thought classical encrpytion would be invinsible, which is being hoarded and stored in hard drives until they can be decrypted.
@@mufradr quantum computing provides the jobs that AI takes away!
This has some truth, but it is not entirely true. Have you ever studied number theory? There are reasons mathematicians are worried and yet excited about this. Encryptions are typically based upon complex mathematical principals that are difficult to calculate with known algorithms using classical computing power. The time to brute force was generally measured by the time to scale compute power or solve a derivative algorithm that would make it simpler. For example, factoring large numbers. The current mitigation for quantum does involve scaling up the size and security protections of the keys, but this will only work for so long. We ultimately require new mathematical concepts implemented by cryptographers that would be difficult for both classical and quantum computers to break. There are some articles on this you can read up on, but it's entirely plausible those concepts could be short lived for such a technology, and at this time - do NOT exist.
only applies to the companies/nations that have quantum computers, i can't afford a near zero temperature room to cool my quantum labtop in, or my quantum phone for that matter.
the worst part about quantum computing, is me being one of billions to be targeted as a safety like it is now doesn't work anymore cause these computers could hit everyone in a short amount of time with its exponentially faster processing time.
Greetings to the guy who commented on the announcement video that he's waiting for this one
ok
😂😂😂 was looking for him
Yeah I was also looking for him
hahaha was looking for this. this is hilarious @MrLe0ni is the guy.
lol everyone is looking for him(including me)
Quantum computers are like cats in boxes-they're either solving the world's hardest problems or doing absolutely nothing, and we won’t know until we check!
😂
...underrated and underappreciated comment! 😎♥️👌
Schrodinger ref?
@@1nwb-4dnws wait, what game is he reffing?
cats in boxes are definitely not solving world's hardest problems.
But can it run doom?
Everything runs Doom!
@@SirDamatoIII But not willow. FAIL for googly.
For 100 microseconds
Yes. No. Actually both, but you wont know untill you try.
@@YomenChannel lmao good one
Someone commented on the Google announcement that they were gonna wait for the Fireship video so they could actually understand it lol
Yeah lmao I stopped watching that video halfway through after seeing that comment and came here instead
Wikipedia introduction to quantum computers > summarize two news articles with chatgpt > joke transition into sponsor segment
The real fireship is swimming in the Bahamas atm, his AI clone has been uploading his videos for months now
Is it that easy
For real, usually I'm a fan but this video was such a miss. Not only low-effort (e.g. "a" and "b" instead of "alpha" and "beta", "cubits" instead of "qubits") but also falling into the QC hype and misrepresenting how quantum algorithms actually work. "Wikipedia introduction" is the perfect way to put it.
could you elaborate
I didnt mind the video (but im not knowledgeable about quantum computation)
You're basically describing every "current event" tuber lmao, he's just brief about it to the point where it's actually efficient to watch instead of seeing crit1kal act like a clown when discussing it, or some doombait tuber telling you the world is ending for real this time
Let's Bogosort everything now
Jesus loves you. Repent and turn away from your sins today 🤗
I had no idea BOGO Sort was a sin. The more you know 😅
@@JesusPlsSaveMe He's too far gone
@@GuardianTam it is
@JesusPlsSaveMe actually one of the few times where you are needed
Willow can solve ONE problem septiliian times faster than a supercomputer. And that problem is a quantum computing specific one. Kind of silly to generalize and say Willow is Septillian times faster than El Capitan when it's infinitely better at everything else.
Like having a calculator that can solve square roots ultra fast, but has no option for + , / %.
It is like saying that an IRL river is a septillion times better at modelling fluid dynamics than even our best super computer...
Like, yeah?
@@SimpMcSimpy right except exchange the square root for some exotic operation that nobody has even heard of and that is not remotely useful to anyone.
@@SimpMcSimpyi still vote for supercomputer 😂😂😂
Right. Even when they start being useful, for the foreseeable future I strongly suspect quantum computers will only be _really_ useful for simulating quantum physics. And speaking as someone with a physics background, that'll be pretty cool by itself.
But we're not about to get "Quantum GPUs" or quantum mobile phones and they wouldn't be good for much even if we did.
tl;dr If you only take one thing away from this video let it be this: quantum computers are NOT SIMPLY MUCH FASTER CLASSICAL COMPUTERS !
2:24 Quantum deez nuts
balz
😂😂
glad people like you exist to this day. You are the embodiment of the new ooga booga
@@achref3251 ☝🏻
And yet it still can't run Crysis.
2005 tier joke, and meme before memes were called memes
@@dertythegrower Tell me you're a zoomer without telling me you're a zoomer. Lookup 'All your base are belong to us'
They can't even properly run Doom
@@dertythegrower Dawkins called memes memes in 1976. We weren't even in our fathers gonads.
@@nivyan you have no chance to survive make your time
Rip Harambe. He would have been so proud.
F.
the only way to honor harambe is going all in with quantum-agi or whatever complicated name that can rip off money from investors
F
This is seriously a watershed moment in the timeline. It has been getting exponentially more weird since this.
Dixout
0:15 - Key- "certain problems".
IDK why but all the sarcasm from this guy keeps making me a better developer.
And this video is exactly 5:00 minutes long.
And exactly 4:20 without the sponsored segment
@@oshdubh4:16
2:04 You can imagine a fireship video and there's a certain probability that A.I will be mentioned.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
A.I. is first mentioned 1:08 into the video, whole 56 seconds earlier
the probability is 1 lol
isn't schroedinger's cat supposed to be a *critique* of the idea of quantum superpositions though? like the thought experiment is supposed to make you go "obviously the cat is *either* dead or alive, you just don't know which yet because you haven't checked. it is not both 'dead and alive', nor is it 'neither dead nor alive', you not knowing which it is changes nothing about reality"
Yeah, it's just analogy to explain the goofy absurdity of the math - not to refute the model.
I wouldn't call it a critique; it's more how non-intuitive physics can get at atomic scales, so that you cannot apply usual day-to-day physical intuition in the quantum level. You would agree it would be absurd for me to say that the cat is dead *and* alive but it does not become absurd if I say that a qubit is both in the 0 and 1 position.
Finally Dragon's Dogma 2 with locked 60 FPS
0:08 Was that Prime?
Duh
TheStartupI™️, so yes. Yes it is. Did you not see him in that one Fireship video?
The first rule about bitcoin is don't talk about quantum computing. The second rule about bitcoin is don't talk about quantum computing....
why?
@@SimpMcSimpy Quantum computing can break the blockchain encryption btc relies own (essentially rendering it worthless)
not only bitcoin will die with quantum computing, eryone will know the horrible things you watch at night.
@@SimpMcSimpyBitcoin is rat poison squared.
@@aseefiBitcoin has always been worthless.
Future hacker be like: 'Encryption? Nah, I ran all the keys at once and got your password before you even hit 'Enter.'😂😂😂
If the passwords leaked* If not the hacker is thrown out of the window after 3 attempts and can eat grass.
Symmetric algorithms remain unaffected by quantum computing
@@4kills482what is that?
@@4kills482 Not unaffected, but affected much, much less. Grover's algorithm requires you to double the number of bits to get the same security against brute force attacks, but that's a very easy mitigation.
New tachyon computers that will do the work you needed yesterday
The 20 ish years between quantum computing going mainstream and money becoming useless after everything becomes autonamous through AI and robotics is going to really suck
If AI isn't hype, it'll almost certainly come first I suspect.
Money can't become useless as it is simply currency, no organized thing can function without some form of currency exchange. If anything the currency will simply be different from money, but will function pretty much the same.
This is why u need to learn. cuz u r talking bs now
1:30 everything reminds me of her
It's really not that hard to introduce security measures for this. It'll just need an update to all security things. Computers from decaes ago likely couldn't hold up security wise against computers of today, it's not absurd to expect new transitions like this every few decades as tech increases.
Right. We just need to update all encryption globally and we'll be fine :).
(you're not _wrong_ BTW, in fact that's what we're already doing in implementing "quantum safe" encryption schemes, it just tickles me when people try to make a gargantuan task appear super easy by simply _stating_ things like "It's really not that hard..." :)
@@anonymes2884 I mean, in a sense, it really isn't. Computers are an incredibly volotile technology, with new risks, vulnerabilities, and patches appearing on the daily. It was just a matter of time until someone figured out how to make all previous security irrelevent.
I am very familiar with what's required on the subject, I am also very familiar with similar situations. Everyone freaks out and throws a fit saying the world will end, and then the actual people doing the work impliment fixes, and most things go as planned. Sure, a bunch of systems will be vulnerable to anyone with millions to throw at the problem, but thats really already the case. We just know what and where the vulnerability is this time.
think of the year 2000, a good chunk of people believed all computers were going to just crap themselves. But with some smart thinking it was handled pretty alright.
TLDR: Meh, just another decade in typical computing.
"easy daily habit" WOW what a nice way to phrase "addiction"
one time pad remains undefeated
it is the eternal solution to cryptography, at least until the other side gets it
@@Gogglesofkrome or you used it accidentally twice
It would be kind of funny if we have to start sending one time pads by physical, old-time mail to protect from quantum decryption😂
"Here's 500TB of one time pads on SD-cards, should cover the next few months of communication!"
I'm still waiting for a cryptanalyst to publicly break my novel encrypt-gib symmetric algo which, instead of XORing streams after confusion, instead uses the round function to create JIT 1-time pads to then create the ciphertext. All I get from them is "trust me bro" nonsense. The efficiency gain is in simplicity with the cost of key and storage size. But simplicity gain is huge.
@@ibgib Do you have a link to the repo/white paper? Not a cryptologist just curious about the use of JIT OTP's, quick google search just brings results for RSA/AES
0:31 Dyson sphere? I thought this was a flat Earth channel!
Well the Earth can still be flat, they never said anything about the shape of the Sun...
He misspoke. He clearly meant Dyson Flat
@@TheBeNjiX34 According to most flat earthers sun does not exist, stars are apparently just "lights in the dome".
Just like the circle is made of segments, a video is sequence of frames.... Globe earth is a collection of flat planes.
just put two big solar cells on top and bottom of a flat sun.
I'm confused as to why there was ZERO mention of post-quantum encryption in this video but OK!
dude just read you a wikipedia article, he wouldn't know about that.
0:53 "But that's ignorant. By the end of this video, you'll understand how quantum computing actually works..."
Always love your human funny code man!
2:13 that's alpha and beta, genius
άλφα and βήτα are the same as a and b in a different script, genius
Source: trust me bro I am Greek
@@devnol We're not talking about Greek here, we're talking about math. And in math, a and alpha are two different things.
closed the tab after this part of the video, lol
@waldolemmer a and α are only as different as foo and bar. Variables don't mean anything when not in context, neither in math, nor in computing, nor in any other form of science. I can call schrödingers wave function Y instead of Ψ and nothing would change as long as we both knew what I was talking about.
@@devnol So you're saying it would be equally acceptable to call those variables "c" and "d"?
We all know what these quantum computer chips will be used for:
social media bots
3:13 they get exponentially worse as there is more noise in the system. It's just like with analog tech.
Yeah, I also thought that that sounded weird, how can they possibly have less errors as they scale up the system, sounds physically impossible to me.
@@kzone674 just another unreasonably quantum optimistic channel. I've added it to "not recommend from it".
@@kzone674quantum effects are less observable at scale this makes perfect sense to me. You are probably still trying to think of things in terms of classical physics
@@Sleight-l4y no, quite the opposite quantum effects are VERY significant at this scale, it is a known result from the modeling and theory of the first quantum circuits that error rates increase with size of qubits (or the respective dimension of the Hilbert space). If there is one thing that going quantum has taught us is that you always have a degree of uncertainty when measuring a given observable, and loosely speaking, composite observables means more degrees of uncertainty (and I'm sure there's an argument here regarding to entropy and the increasing of accessible states of a system). They could've somehow came up with a novel error mitigation method but I confess I did not read the article (I hope they did :) )
@@Sleight-l4y btw I'll be happy to try to dig a more concrete proof of what I mean from my old notes, but this is just my thoughts on the fly
We do have quantum proof encryption methods, so I tend not to worry so much about that.
Finally, we can now calculate the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything
Offline encryption that doesn’t have sufficient security to prevent brute force attacks will be o7 when they release this but everything else is fine. People are freaking out of nothing.
Fun Fact: A group of Minecraft players managed to create a supercomputer that was stronger that the supercomputer used in US Navy operations… just to find a really tall cactus.
source: my ass
your reddit gold sir
Minecraft players revolutionize computer science just find a goddamn world seed.
uh?
Please use supplementary resources other than youtube
This result was published in August, but everyone is celebrating this as if it came out yesterday.
Because google's video came out yesterday
"These chips need to be kept at temperatures near absolute zero" is the absolute deal breaker, now I no longer believe in the future of quantum computing.
the scariest thing is not about future communications being compromised. the scary shit is when all the collected/intercepted data can be decrypted at will.
so communication of when bitcoin was still being created and shit
yeah thats the real issue...i cant wait for the first time somebody runs for office somewhere in the world and somebody else whips out the now decrypted group chat messages they intercepted when the first person was 15...wont that just be lovely?
@@WoolyCow pff, that's childs play. I'm more so concerned about top secret correspondence between presidents and their generals or whatnot. Also, all the passwords that have ever been will be out there, so you better hope that you have 2fa
@@riddixdan5572 jokes on them my password was 'qwertu' all along...no brute force, quantum or otherwise, could ever figure out my genius scheme of skipping a letter
In 2019 they said their Quantum Computer did a calculation that would take a normal computer 10,000 years to do. Then a short time later someone did the same calculation in the same amount of time that it took the Quantum Computer to do it. And if you read the new paper from Google they are expecting something similar this time too
I guess Google will use quantum computer to encrypt ads so we can't block them. Mark my words :D
10 years ago when i studied Computer Science quantum computers were "just 10 years from now", they still are, just like fusion reactors.
Remember, progress happens exponentially (for the most part) LLMs also just appeared one day out of nowhere.
Bruh wtf this was just released
1:18 same, I still remember when I commented hi and he said hi back, that was four years ago. Good times
it's really crazy how nobody is talking about the book the elite society's money manifestation, it changed my life
Strange things happening at a distance
There are already Post Quantum Encryption algo's
My favorite quantum fact is that the largest number factorable by shor's is 21.
It’s amusing how any time the world discusses a milestone achieved by China, the word “scary” seems to be a go-to descriptor. It’s as if there’s some unspoken script everyone’s following!
Yeah our masters really want us to be afraid of China. Unlike with local problems where we know our political superstructure is lying to us, we don't really have any other point of contact with people on the other side of the world so those claims easily go unchallenged.
Tbf, In China. You can get arrested of you compare Xi to a beloved children cartoon bear (which it's more insulting to the cartoon bear, imo). Where anywhere else, people can compare their leader to horse fecal matter and get a way with it.
because of the Chinese government
1:39 I also made mistake for so long about "How Classical Computer AKSHUALLY~🤓Compute", but today I'll make it straight. CC using Logic to compute NOT use Binary! Binary is the logical state/Address value/Numbers/Math on Computer/Cyber world. Logic(Boolean) And all it's operands are the "Command" of all process, simply if it's in math it's called "Order of Operations"/PEMDAS 👈WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT and also can be FATAL if mistranslated/misunderstood by Brainware, Hardware or even by the Software.
Logic in CC is still YES or NO aka "Binary Logic" and until today we understood it. In other hand~ Quantum computer is use "Hadamard Gate"(...actually still Idk wtf is this) which can be a true depiction for quantum logic or just still an inadequate example for Order of Operation for Quantum process/math. So what's the concern? Well there's such thing like "catch" in QC. Their logic consist by Maybe and All-be(All can Maybe) to process a single simple question. Picture a Venn diagram, you see inside the space/square limit there is two circle overlapped and area cross section of it. CC using only those cross section but QC use literally both individual circles as a "Maybe" and outer space/square limit/entire area of chalkboard as "All-be". As you can see those kind of absurd to picture BUT for QC that's the probability which still basically as Yes/No solution.
For short I quote Richard Feynman, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics". Yes, Maybe~
babe wake up new quantum computing still sucks as of today just dropped
Now I know why EL Capitan was so obvious.
Holy shit, these automatic Audio Translations are terrifying - every once in a while youtube just jumpscares me with this AI Voice screaming at me in an unexpressive tone^^
least obvious rage bait
@miberss there's "audio tracks" they aren't talking about the guy specifically
what are you talking about?
4:00 The xiahongshu chip
the future of yapdollar is brighter than ever
3:34 cubits
Good qatch!
This will take all your regex skills to a whole new level. I guarantee it
4:18 - It is fine, the new animal anchor was killed when Peanut the Squirrel died, we are back to the main timeline
TFW influencing how random numbers give you an answer is faster than actually computing the answer
1:01 It's on December 10, 2024 (Jumada al-Akhir 8, 1446 AH) and you're watching Fireship Videos about Google's New Computing Chip on the Code Report Series.
Excellent!
You're from middle east?
Too good 🤣
@@fahimuddin4401 No, I'm from Indonesia.
Hm so quantum computers are gonna be supercomputers only available for giant corporations and governments, and can (probably) never be scaled down to be available for consumers?
Probably good to mention: you don't have to be afraid that quantum computers will be available any time soon to any 13 year old hacker who wants them. That problem that was mentioned in the video about those chips needing to be really, really, really, seriously really cold is fundamental to quantum computers. And you can't draw a parallel with the progress of binary computers. That necessity for cold is a physics problem, not a computer science problem, so the logic of "this will gradually improve" doesn't apply in the same way as with traditional computers. Meaning that for the foreseeable future, the electricity bill is and will remain darn near unaffordable. It's why typically only megacorporations, governments and colab academic institutions have them.
So to make quantum computers feasable for consumers, we first need to discover completely new quantum physics theorems, or finally invent one of them room-temperature superconductors (and despite someone claiming too have invented one every 5 years or so, progress in that area still isn't looking very hopeful so far).
also, post-quantum encryption algorithms have already been invented, and it's not like you need a quantum computer to run them. They work fine on classical computers.
Well, yes and no. There are other types of quantum computing hardware which _don't_ use superconductors (e.g. trapped ion qubits) so those hard limits only apply to this particular approach. But regardless, it's still true that, as far as we can tell, quantum computers (and Shor's algorithm) only help break encryption that depends on factoring large numbers and we're _already_ moving away (albeit slowly) from that type of encryption.
So by the time quantum computers _are_ widely available, IF that ever happens (either via other hardware/materials science advances or sure, much more excitingly IMO but also _much_ less likely, new physics), it _should_ be mostly irrelevant for day to day encryption anyway (though _stored_ data using factoring style encryption _will_ still be crackable - it's widely believed in security circles that various entities are hoovering up and storing vast quantities of encrypted data _now_ in the hopes that _future_ quantum computers will allow them to break it _and_ at least some of the information will still be useful).
Yeah, but a bigger problem if governments use it. Do you really think people in power are fluffier than 13yo hackers?
@The_Loose_Spirit: Dear God yes. That is not to say I don't believe governments can be evil. But have you ever met 13 year old hacker boys? That is a pretty high evilness bar to clear.
@@anonymes2884 Thanks for that trapped ion qubits info. Hadn't heard of it. Going to check it out.
Love the Hawk reference. That kind of quality journalism is why I’m here.
3:57 hacker gun fingers might be my new favorite stock clip
The coolest part about q-computing isn't even the computing power, as that is heavily task dependent. And the 2 most "powerful" computing methods that produce these outrageous results have roughly 50% chance of giving you wrong answer even if there is no error in the computation. So you always have to check the result some other way.
The cool thing is that each entangled q-bit acts as a cache/ram too, storing data till function collapses. And that grows exponentially with more entangled q-bits. So there could be chips that have petabytes of onboard ram in the future.
And Chrome will still eat it all.
Quantum computing just feels like a bug in a video game that we learned to abuse to do cool things.
real
I've always said that redstone update order is like the quantum mechanics of Minecraft
The Harambe reminder was bad :( It really went all down after that day
Brute forcing can have other defences though, such as you know, not giving them enough tries to brute force it... (Obviously this isn't always the case but for a lot of things, adding a timer to how many attempts you get renders the speed of the computer useless, so brute forcing is just as bad as it always was)
Correct me if I'm wrong though
Bitcoin addresses are public so you can brute force the private key as much as you want.
there's better defences, like just using a better algorithm. post-quantum encryption algorithms have already been invented that make it as hard for a quantum computer to crack it as it is for a classical computer to crack current encryption algorithms
thats not the point. the entire purpose of HTTPS is that even if someone intercepts your traffic they can't steal/see your data because it is encrypted in a way which cannot be undone within a reasonable time frame. with these theoretical quantum computers if they intercept your traffic, they can crack it and see your passwords, data, or literally anything and everything you do on the internet
I love quantum computers. They're actually something adjacent to what I will be getting my Ph.D. in.
The biggest upgrade with quantum that states can have phase shifts, and so can interfere with other states using quantum logic gates to increase the probability of measuring a state you would want to find.
Vast majority of people: Rise of quantum computing plus rise of AI will create the Matrix by 2030.
Person who actually knows something about IT: Can you please tell me what Quantum computers actually do?
Vast majority of people: Error 404
vast majority of people don't say that
@@vibaj16 ok
Did you start to outsource your video editing?
At 3:36, the text shows "cubit" on the screen. I believe it was not deliberate from your side? Or was it?
3:19 literally me
😂😂
The most important part, that quantum computers are horrible at normal math because they process very low amount of data, has been somehow left out...
0:25 why do they keep on saying "more years than the age of the universe"? That's a bit like saying "the area of Siberia is bigger than a grain of sand" - technically true, but completely misses the scale comparison. The number of years they're saying - 10^25 - is more than the age of the universe by a factor of 10^16! EVERYONE - PLEASE REFERRING TO "THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE"!!
I don't think the intention is to give a sense of relative scale, but rather just to establish that the whole history of the universe could have passed and it would still be processing.
When the difference is that vast, the point is just about that vastness, not the specifics.
Every time google claims quantum supremacy, someone shows they could do it just as quick classically
0:16 Or Equivalent to 10^25 Times Faster.
0:23
Feels kinda wild that there are still old people from the 2000s who still struggle to this day on opening their email
Bro said old people from the 2000s 💀
@@juancamilobolanos7297 lol yup
I must be ancient then...
Never forget May 28th 2016...
Thank you, I was not aware of the reference, but get it now.
I was in Junior High School at that time.
2:45 curious, does the error correction algorithm run on the quantum computer itself or interpreted somehow on traditional hardware?
lmao the editing is so good in this one....the.....timeline is certainly messed up 4:20
3:25 slight correction (because of google lying in the marketing blog)
they achieved ~60 mu-s, not 100, although the 5 times more figure is what they mentioned.
this is there in the blog too, just the heading of the topic says 100 mu-s
finally I can run Python, where the speed doesn't matters
It's a Great Video! Even though the Comments are more than 1K, this Video has a lot of Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry!
Up
According to UA-cam's Metadata, This Video was Uploaded at 00.19 WIB (UTC+7).
I woke up at 5 am and saw this Video : What are the comments? There are already more than 1,000 Comments.
PSA: Quantum computing does not "solve all problems by trying all possibilities in different parallel universes till it finds one where you become batman and solve it and beam it back across timelines to yourself". In other words, quantum computers don't turn you into batman, and won't solve your problems for you. They break RSA cryptography, but when most cryptography is post-quantum, it's genuinely a fascinating problem as to what other useful problems they can help in speeding up. Perhaps those with more experience could help by stating some problems.
I'll start: I know it speeds up unstructured search, but I don't know how it translates to speeding up a full algorithm for a useful problem.
Edit: Please also give references, it would be really helpful (to me mostly, but I imagine to humanity in general as well).
There's a few things, but generally there isn't much that appears in quantum that doesn't have a classical analogue that can run at higher speeds or similar (just because of gate speed). Some stuff that you may not know, a lot of advanced radio communication algorithms work well, a lot of scheduling/routing/floor-planning, weird finance stuff like crazy fast complicated arbitrage pathways or sharpe ratio optimization... so it's a lot of weird stuff that we generally do without but if we had an answer it revolutionize enormous industries by solving that specific problem - which is why people piss away billions funding it.
@@whatisrokosbasilisk80 Very interesting! A quick search showed some papers (from IBM quantum) that showed how some scheduling works better `in practice'. Are these what you're talking about? Or do you mean there are faster quantum algorithms for some of these problems?
> Break encryption
the only encryption scheme vulnerable to quantum computers is RSA. and people already dumped it to switch to a quantum resistant encryption schemes
Gotta catch em all
''You first need to understand how quantum computing works''
Magic. Got It.
I saw a quantum computing expert on nottingham university's youtube describe quantum computers as magic boxes that spit out results without any understanding of the inner working. Didn't make sense to me, you can't build something like that to begin with and even if you somehow could you could never treat its output as correct as you couldn't work backwards to validate it.
There are problems that are VERY hard to brute force, but very easy to verify a solution to. Factoring large prime numbers is an obvious example.
You can just multiply the two output numbers together and check that it equals the original number.
that's so oversimplified that many would call it straight up wrong.
@@ayybe7894 You misunderstand. If you do have a "magical box" that spits out the right answer all of the time, while you can verify that each answer it produces is correct you can never actually trust any answer it gives because you don't know how it reached that answer, and the only way you could then tell if any new answer is correct is by working through it in a normal way which then takes as long or longer.
That's what doesn't make sense to me, if you even could make a system that works in that way (no idea) you'd never be safe to trust it and so it would be pointless.
@@mchammer5026 You say oversimplified and not simply wrong. I know nothing about the subject beyond a little bit of pop-sci channel stuff occasionally. What makes you say oversimplified?
@jimmydesouza4375 it's not like it's a black box in the sense that we don't understand what's going on. it's a black box in the sense that you can't go in mid-calculation and check what state it is in (as you would for a debugger in a classical program). the claim that you can't verify the answers also only applies to a subset of problems. many problems are such that it's hard to find a solution, but easy to verify once you have a candidate solution. @ayybe7894 gave the very good (if obvious) example of factoring numbers. say the task you're interested in is factoring big numbers. you have a number, you want to know its factors. doing this on a classical computer is hard. so hard we base encryption on it. doing it on quantum hardware is "easy". once you have the quantum hardware, you ask it "what are the factors of this big number?" and it gives you two factors (well it actually only gives you one but that's details). it's easy to check if those are actually the factors. if not, you ask it again, until, when you multiply the numbers it gives you, you get your original number back. problem solved.
Shor's algorithm was mentioned!!!! Having a P-time (and a relitively fast one at that) solver for prime favtorization is huge. Doesn't prove NP-Completeness but may make the church turring thesis inacurate if we can not find a P-time translation for quatum computers but have P-time algorithms that in exponental time on a non-quantum computers. Still a ways out but finally I get to nerd out about computability and complexity theory in a quantum setting, good things to fall asleep to tbh.
I should note that everyone has long been preparing for this to happen and the introduction of available quantum computers won't actually have much effect on encryption and internet communication, if any.
All world powers are sitting on hoards of old encrypted data, in a strategy known has "harvest now, decrypt later". It will be cataclysmic.
That is so not true. Many modern encryption techniques aren't even quantum-computing proof, and that's not even discussing the amount of legacy code in use today
@@StepwaveMusic Legacy code always has and will be a problem, regardless of quantum computing.
As for the "modern encryption techniques", people foresaw this problem decades in advance. There's even a whole thing with governments and other entities storing data for the sole purpose of being able to decrypt them when they get access to sufficient quantum computing.
That's not to say that poor practices aren't going to screw us over, but in principle everything necessary has already been researched, developed, and even largely implemented.
To say 10^25 years is more than age of universe, is like saying the observable universe is larger than a peanut.
Like maybe you were going for "more elementary particles in the universe"? (10^~85; even then 10^25 v 10^85 is a wild comparison. We're sooooo bad at conceptualizing exponentiation. Not trying to rag on you. You're my favorite.)
Most encryptions can already be broken by the NSA.
how
Or any visitor whom wondered into Trump’s toilet in Mar-a-Lago. Assuming the cleaner didn’t get these documents first.
@@sinancemyucel4644 Most encryptions (can't talk about much of it, so its solely word of mouth type stuff) are backdoored by the NSA, the NSA will either threaten encryption developers into backdooring their protocols or just backdoor it themselves, the NSA has skeleton keys for some of the protocols. Sounds like a conspiracy theory I know, but work with the DoD and get the right clearances and you could gain access to that shit.
Pretty much any country is trying to backdoor protocols constantly. China, Russia, etc... but the issue is most protocols are US-made. some companies are also US-made, Oracle is a government project be surprised (yes the company that made Java).
Are you FE?
@@BarbarasMilk can't go into more detail than I already have.
1:12 3:47 It's a common misconception quantum computers can "Brute force" all your encryption algorithms because they are faster, but that's not true. Quantum computers are significantly slower, so are even worse at brute force, they just have available some special algorithms like shor's, that lets them not NEED to brute force like a classical computer would. They are only useful because they have very specific algorithms available that happen to solve the very specific problem used in RSA and ECC encryption. But there are plenty of problems they don't have algorithms to solve, like crystal-lattice encryption.
No views, bro fell off
56 second tomato-meter aah review
My man uploaded 2 minutes ago 💀
All the tech people in Cali are doing their morning scrum
Bro uploaded 3 minutes ago 💀
only 10k views after 4 minutes😢
(p)
if it becomes a threat, just increase the encryption keys to 1megabit :)
what… i thought quantum computing was stuck to big-ass machines for the foreseeable future
You still need to cool it to near zero K.
The chip itself is tiny but it can only function when inside a huge superocooling dilution refrigerator
@ I wonder if we’ll ever discover alternative ways to deal with heat produced by electronics that aren’t just desperately trying to keep them cool
@@alexandery9436 aaah, so all that is legit just cooling. pretty insane
@@KojoBaileywon’t work with quantum chips since they rely on the absence of thermal noise to function
1:07 Science Students be like : I've Studied Chemistry!