Posted on 09/25/2019 2:50:36 PM PDT by LibWhacker
It can actually make sense out of common core math....
Well no it can’t. Nothing can.
Maybe bistromathics or medical billing.
Maybe bistromathics or medical billing.
I built one of those in 1987.
It’s still in my garage.
Mine had no clock though, it ran asynchronously.
All instructions had a parallel latching state transition exactly tuned to the quantum execution of an instruction.
i.e. at the exact moment in time when an instruction completes at the quantum level, it is latched.
Actually, it was 1986.
You’re welcome.
I for one welcome our sterile, quantum supremacy, artificially intelligent, pleasure bot overlords.
I guess my bidenBites1 password is no longer any good?
.
Yeah, but can it beat one of these bad boys?
Because John Titor wasn't looking for any quantum anything, he wanted this...
.
Sycamore? I’m surprised they didn’t name it Wormwood...
*ping*
IAC, I’ll be holding of a purchase of one until the prices drop substantially... Maybe by Christmas 2020 Santa can bring me one...
Thanks fieldmarshaldj.
Oh, good, so DARPA (and others) haven’t taken their best
AI’s and given them some quantum computing resources to play
with and iterate endlessly upon multiple increasingly “useful”
framework designs.
Nothing to worry about...
Move along, move along...
Don’t google intuitive AI...
https://www.ted.com/talks/maurice_conti_the_incredible_inventions_of_intuitive_ai
Looked up quantum computing in wikipedia. Can’t make any sense of it. Not to say it’s nonsense but the explainer hasn’t gotten through to me.
The term “quantum supremacy” is bothersome.
One has to research long, hard, and fast, just to understand
how far behind the “human” part of design (and much else) is
becoming. (At an exponentially increasing rate.)
It is already at the point where a military needs AI to
defend against AI.
“how far behind the “human” part of design (and much else) is becoming”
I’m a computer programmer. As far as I’m concerned it’s all just programs written by humans. All that’s new is more data, more sensors picking up data, and programmers pondering how to program things such as scans of faces, so a computer can take scans of new faces and compare them with stored faces.
Computer behavior has always been artificial, and human intelligence, not computer intelligence, has always been behind it.
When a computer takes a square root, it doesn’t know it’s taking a square root. It’s just executing the instruction set built into it, executing instructions according to a program created by a person.
bump
Right up until the AI is the programmer, and “Coding” is more
about telling the AI what is wanted, and what is not.
It’s true that quantum computing will probably be able, at some point, to break public-key encryption.
However, it will NEVER be true that quantum computing can break all forms of encryption.
The types of encryption that are forever secure against brute-force decryption suffer from what is called the key-exchange problem. The most secure encryption method ever designed is extremely easy to implement but requires the ability to create true random numbers. The old German Enigma machine was a severely flawed implementation of such a scheme. Enigma’s main flaw was it depended upon machine-generated random numbers and no machine, no software method, of generating true random numbers will ever exist. Only quantum effects can generate such randomness.
The problem of key-exchange has become easier to deal with now that storage media like flash memory is available. This makes possible such things as totally secure data transmission over an insecure medium (internet) using insecure hardware (i.e. your smart phone)and a small, simple, trusted, encryption device that is under only the user’s control... but the key-exchange problem means that a copy of the generated random bits must exist at the transmission point as well as the reception point...public-key methods avoid this messy detail but public-key is vulnerable to quantum decryption. :-/
This is not really that complicated but it is difficult to explain with mere words, it needs a demonstration to allow one to see how it functions. If you understand how Enigma worked and what its flaws were, then demonstrating what could be done to fix those flaws would be a great way to explain all this in an easy to understand way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.