quantum42 · HackerTrans

4 yıl öncediscuss

if a VC takes 10% for $2M or whatever is appropriate at whatever valuation then as long as it is less than 50% or less than what the founder holds in shares or as long as founder shares have more in voting rights then why should the founder not take the money? They'll still be in control, no?

quantum42

4 yıl öncediscuss

quantum42

4 yıl öncediscuss

From my research into QC, the main advances I see:

1. Breakthroughs in quantum error correction that is allowing IBM to promise a leap from 89 qubits today to 4,000 qubits in 2025 (still not enough on its own for a cryptographically relevant quantum computer - CRQC0, running Shor's algorithm for exponential speedup in breaking e.g. RSA 2048, which some research suggests would take 20M qubits including those for quantum error correction)

2. The breakthrough by University of Chicago researchers that showed multiple quantum computers can be entangled over tuned optical fibers to act as a single quantum computer. This still doesn't mean that we can go from 4,000 qubits to 20M by networking 5,000 of the quantum computers IBM promised for 2025, in 2025, but it provides a trajectory for networked quantum computing as a horizontal scaling strategy.

quantum42

4 yıl öncediscuss

The article must be written someone who is not an expert in this field, or an expert who is suppressing information to disinform with his conclusion.

I say this because:

1. They say nothing about the breakthroughs in quantum error correction that is allowing IBM to promise a leap from 89 qubits today to 4,000 qubits in 2025 (still not enough on its own for a cryptographically relevant quantum computer - CRQC0, running Shor's algorithm for exponential speedup in breaking e.g. RSA 2048, which some research suggests would take 20M qubits including those for quantum error correction)

2. He did not mention Grover's algorithm which provides quadratic speedup (for time complexity of searching for a particular string in an unsorted list of N items) over their classical counterparts. However, even quadratic speedup is considerable when N is large.

3. He did not mention the breakthrough by University of Chicago researchers that showed multiple quantum computers can be entangled over tuned optical fibers to act as a single quantum computer. This still doesn't mean that we can go from 4,000 qubits to 20M by networking 5,000 of the quantum computers IBM promised for 2025, in 2025, but it provides a trajectory for networked quantum computing as a horizontal scaling strategy.

4. He did not mention the $100B allocated this year by the Whitehouse/Congress for CRQC research.

What is his motive in giving us such an incomplete story with such a skewed conclusion? Is he working for a hedge fund that is shorting some stock? Or is he just a lay person trying to sound intelligent by writing about a field where they're not sufficiently informed?

comments