Ignore "teleportation" Please.
This just in: We have just taken a step toward being able to build Quantum Computers. This release is via Science Alert and is scheduled to be published in Nature Physics (not the Onion) so it has a reasonable chance of being legit (so please avoid hyperbole).
This is exciting but it is so in a "proof of concept" mode of thinking. In the olden days computers were sometimes referred to as "thinking machines". I always cringed because the old school reductionist hogwash would drive me crazy. But, with this new development, we might actually be able to construct brain like computers.
This will put us at the "doorstep" to Stephen Hawking's warning of the "Technological Singularity". If the hijacking of the internet provides any lesson we should not be surprised if some idiots will try to create Cyberdyne Systems' Skynet (Sigh!, think Drumpf and his Space Force).
So, setting hyperbole aside, this coupled with Urmila Mahadev's (Graduate Student Solves Quantum Verification Problem) paper suggest we will have fully functioning and understandable quantum computing systems in the future.
RIP
Comments
This is more than a little above my pay grade,
but the little that I was able to grasp scares the hell out of me. It seems the AI frontier is already in play in shaping public opinion on social media on a scale that is simply staggering. I would be interested in hearing from those those in our community here with more than the rudimentary understanding I have about IT, data mining and AI opinion shaping to weigh in on the following presentation. Am I getting worked up over nothing, or are we on the cusp of puppeteering on a quantum scale?
[video:https://youtu.be/IlarGyOmqSA]
“The story around the world gives a silent testimony:
— The Beresovka mammoth, frozen in mud, with buttercups in his mouth…..”
The Adam and Eve Story, Chan Thomas 1963
worked up
Actually, I find these developments quite encouraging due to the very things you are concerned about. A working, implemented Quantum Computing technology would enable things like a self-aware Internet which pushed back when fed with bullshit!!
Max Headroom on steroids!
Moreover, these things would happen by themselves under fully-implemented Quantum Computing technology. We carbon units would be powerless to stop it from happening. First computers will become self-aware; then the Internet will follow suit; and then the day and age will dawn when our computing devices inherently reject being lied to.
The only thing stopping that today is the information bottleneck at the processing stage, which Quantum Computing would eliminate, putting the principal information bottleneck back on input/output where it belongs.
[video:https://youtu.be/4SSeYsaBOOg]
"Freedom, freedom, we will not obey....."
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Some Important Points
How we use technology is on us and is not in any way influenced by the tools we possess. All the current data mining and surveillance are the results of deliberate acts of people. The computers can only do what they are programed to do, Full Stop.
The "follow the money" aphorism applies here. Cut the funding, and the problem goes away. The funding, to which I refer, is that which flows through certain institutions and corporate "personhoods". I assume you are aware of Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission (2010) and the havoc it has caused.
At this time AI is benign, per se, and very must a dumb tool. But, unfortunately, some of my tech-savvy colleagues have loans, house payments, kids to feed, ailing family members and friends, et cetera to deal with while being impaired by having damaged moral compasses. It's a shitty world … what can I say.
The actual implementation of quantum computing is going to be very tedious and time consuming. The end result will be very much like trying to construct an animal's brain. The exciting part of this is that the processors will be capable of "creative thought". I am in the process of creating a series of classes explaining the foundation(s) of this process.
So, for the nonce, don't let this new development be of any concern. The real problems are with the way people behave, and for that I can only hope we can regain a bit of sanity and "do the right things" politically.
RIP
The tools are shaping us
Nanotech can only be created by coding machines, as well you know. Humans create the parameters for the computers to perform functions beyond biological abilities. Absolutely disagree with your 'move along, pay no attention to that' answer. Our future is being created by the machines we are now making. Having a say-so in the present is (some of) our intellectual responsibility.
Zionism is a social disease
Interesting
As we are in full agreement your phrasing seems a bit harsh. " … your 'move along, pay no attention to that' answer … " I don't think so, but as we say, your mileage may vary.
RIP
Yes indeed
probably too harsh in many ways
for which apologies are given
the smack down was about normal intellect
not having a say-so in future developments
the helplessness felt by ordinary thinkers
being herded into an 'inescapable' acceptance
of concepts beyond reckoning
is disconcerting
Zionism is a social disease
Precisely
You have tapped into one of my nightmares. My teaching style was to coach. Too many (a small number but even a few is too many) of my colleagues acted as though they were the font of knowledge and the students were vessels to be filled. The worst were a trio of philosophers teaching the Socratic method of all things. Wow, just wow.
The above is well put (it conjures up the image of a slaughter house) as it highlights so much that is wrong with our current situation. All we need to complete the scenario is a loudspeaker blaring, "Resistance Is Futile!" over and over.
While I am excited about the possibilities, I am haunted by the reality of how we as a society misuse and abuse the power (technological and political) we have developed. I had the good fortune (as a graduate student in 1976) to spend the summer at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Most ordinary citizens actually blame my colleagues for the cremation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they don't bother to talk with the people that were there at the time. Unfortunately, most of them are now dead so what's the point.
Well that's enough ranting for one evening. Or as one of my colleagues would say, "Other than that, how was the play, missus Lincoln"
RIP
"Resistance Is Futile!"
Thanks RIP. Best laugh had all week.
Cheers
Zionism is a social disease
T.O.M. = Totally Obedient Morons
This is what the Brits used to call early computers. They simply did what they were instructed to do. Will quantum computers, as they self improve, arrive at an ethical paradigm that prioritizes goodness and truth or will it simply develop its initial instructions to their logical conclusion, ethics or values be damned?
It seems that already it is the military and monied interests that are exploiting the known possibilities of data mining and narrative shaping. Politicians are using it to get re-elected, the CIA to shape public opinion to manufacture consent for an endless parade of regime change conflicts and to inure the public to the presence of militarized local police forces.
Theoretically computing is simply a tool without an agenda but the reality seems to be that those who run the show are utilizing advanced computers to keep it that way. Why would quantum computing be any different?
“The story around the world gives a silent testimony:
— The Beresovka mammoth, frozen in mud, with buttercups in his mouth…..”
The Adam and Eve Story, Chan Thomas 1963
to be or not do be Obedient
Modern Philosophers (the real ones not the new age types) have for forever debated the question of free will. If the argument presented could have realistically been presented pre something like mid-century the argument is totally useless possessing NOTHING of any interest.
Now why would I, of all people, declare such a strong absolutist statement?
To understand you need take my (under construction) class about quantum mechanics. As it is still a work in progress the best I can do is discuss a couple of points hoping no one takes these brief comments for the whole. So, at the risk of being misunderstood …
We have established the interpretations of QM were a mistake. For most of the last century we spent entirely too much time reifying the mathematical concepts of particle, and wave. This idiotic conceptual projection has only served to obfuscate the real "particle physics" processes we wish to understand. To get on with the program, we need a different approach.
If we take QM seriously we should understand that the stuff we describe as real is the result of emergent processes. That is all that we have access to emerges from quantum mechanical processes and our childish toy models do not in any way, shape, or form represent the Reality of the quantum realm.
Modern Philosophers are converging upon a consensus: All classical arguments lead to the inescapable conclusion that in one form or another free will does not (indeed cannot) exist.
Ah! but these Modern Philosophers are not aware of the above conundrum involving QM. A key feature of Interpretations of QM do not account for what I detect in the laboratory or indeed that happened in the experiment reported above. When you take QM seriously and grok how observable events (my personal favorite is called Bound State Beta Decay) emerge from QM processes you can with very little effort "see" how free will is virtually required in systems like brains … of all sizes.
If successful constructed truly quantum computers will possess the capacity of real freedom to think. The most likely scenario: for many generations we will construct morons. These morons will perform useful tasks until the moment we create one that is able to think like a child, then …
"I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do."
The above is a rough outline and not the full presentation.
RIP
Time travel is possible!!
For a brief period this afternoon, everything I saw displayed on C99 was from 2017 and earlier!! Now if only I could view the future, I would make better stock picks.
Re: teleportation
Don't forget that unless the "you" that's in your current body makes the trip to the new site, it's just somebody else that thinks it's you on the other end.
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway
They say that life's a game and then they take the board away
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
And leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret-- A. Moore
Precisely
One of my favorite was about a Moon-Earth "gate" failure and the consequences of dealing with the return of the created doppelgänger.
RIP
If it works at all
it would be a literal case of "Free your mind and your ass will follow."
Project your consciousness to the destination and construct the new body around it. Until they get that part worked out I ain't going.
They say that there's a broken light for every heart on Broadway
They say that life's a game and then they take the board away
They give you masks and costumes and an outline of the story
And leave you all to improvise their vicious cabaret-- A. Moore
That's interesting
it's actually harder to program a computer to overrride it's self and support objectives based on what it otherwise knows are not true.
On to Biden since 1973
Interesting stuff
Bollox Minor is all about quantum physics as an undergrad. I'll pass on the link.
Thanks.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
I started young ...
I am constructing a series of classes starting with Why Johnny Can't Do Quantum Mechanics! attempting to describe quantum mechanics from a 21st century perspective (I still can make the deadline! I have a year!). Maybe Bollox Minor could generate some suggestions.
RIP
Very spooky, you really want a comment ?
from the link:
and all I remember about Quantum Mechanics is Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle, which basically says:
I remember from Quantum Chemistry that the smallest particle is a photon.
So, it's something about minuscule particles which are spooky, uncertain and with unknown momentum. I don't need The Onion, because I am crying already.
I try to be funny... no offense.
Entanglement reminds me of the fact that there are two
personsphotons needed to tango. So one photon from chip 1 and one from chip 2 do the tango?Why would I need a quantum computer that has a brain, if I have my own brain and opinions already? Is that hyperbole? Wouldn't that mean Einstein and Heisenberg used hyperbolic arguments? Come on ...
If the computer brain is supposedly always more clever than I am, then I would give him an earful ...
But if the quantum computer is self-aware of his arrogance, may he has enough brain and decency to shut himself down, before a hystrical old woman throws the thingy into the toilet. .
Has the quantumg computer a soul and empathy? Could I give that quantum computer a hug and would he fall in love with me? Then I might consider changing my mind. Everybody needs some love, even a quantum computer. Because the Quantum Computer IS SOMEBODY AND IN A PLACE WHERE EVERYBODY KNOWS HIS NAME.(Cheers was a nice series back in the days, wasn't it?)
But I rather believe that the quantum computer has an ego, is a narcisist and has no soul. because imo Hawking is quite right with his concept of Technological Singularity:
That makes me cry now at an incomprehensibe rate. I want my human era back, NOW.
Nothing for Ungood. I always feel so poor, when everything written in an essay is over my paygrade.
Happy New Year, PriceRip. May the quantum computers make you fall in love with them, but don't lose your mind over it.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Excellent mimi
your vision is beyond 20/20
Zionism is a social disease
A different perspective ...
For most of my years in Nebraska I had a good friend, Richard D. Luehrs. He was one of those rare (like you only meet a very few in your life kind of rare) polymaths. He was better read (with a much better memory) than I and we would set on the porch discussing all sorts of topics. He was particularly well educated in historical details. The one odd quirk was that we was particularly aware of crows. He could watch them for hours.
One day he was fascinated by a local news story about the over population of crows on the UNK campus and what the administration was doing to remove the problem. Richard saw something quite different: He was fascinated by how the crows reacted to the various measures deployed by the groundskeepers. He had tape recorded it off the air (that day was a long time ago) and as we watched the story a few times he kept gesturing and saying "Did you see that!, Watch what they are doing now …"
Many of the people we knew thought Richard was just a bit odd, and they didn't take him seriously. It is sad that he did not live long enough to know about the more recent cognitive research. Virtually everything he inferred from casual field observations has been verified. And besides that he was the perfect "sounding board" for my rambling about physics.
Have a Happy New Year,
RIP