the quantum hype bandwagon is rolling out - awful.systems
awful.systems
the VCs are pushing the quantum hype again. this is an FT editorial (archive.is [http://archive.is] isn’t working for me, anyone wanna post an archive link) note lack of citation of actual results, a ton of handwaving about big companies, repeated “could,” and the earliest date postulated is 2033 many of the important requirements for a VC bubble party the tech press has been loaded with this shit, just a fuckin flood of it, all this nonspecific and glossing over the lack of mere existing tech in the present day note that this has nothing to do with actual quantum computing, this is purely how to set up the tech macguffin for a bubble party pretty good for a thing that is real - but doesn’t exist as a technology yet or any time soon bsky [https://bsky.app/profile/kshay.com/post/3lx5rdb6mbs2j]: > Tired: cloud computing > > Wired: could computing

(This is an expanded version of a comment I made, which I’ve linked above.)

Well, seems the tech industry’s prepared to pivot to quantum if and when AI finally dies and goes away forever. If and when the hucksters get around to inflating the quantum bubble, I expect they’re gonna find themselves facing some degree of public resistance - probably not to the extent of what AI received, but still enough to give the hucksters some trouble.

The Encryption Issue

One of quantum’s big selling points is its purported ability to break the current encryption algorithms in use today - for a couple examples, Shor’s algorithm can reportedly double-tap public key cryptography schemes such as RSA, and Grover’s algorithm promises to supercharge brute-force attacks on symmetric-key cryptography.

Given this, I fully expect its supposed encryption-breaking abilities to stoke outcry and resistance from privacy rights groups. Even as a hypothetical, the possibility of such power falling into government hands is one that all-but guarantees Nineteen Eighty-Four levels of mass surveillance and invasion of privacy if it comes to pass.

Additionally, I expect post-quantum encryption will earn a lot of attention during the bubble as well, to pre-emptively undermine such attempts at mass surveillance.

Environmental Concerns

Much like with AI, info on how much power quantum computing requires is pretty scarce (though that’s because they more-or-less don’t exist, not because AI corps are actively hiding/juicing the numbers).

The only concrete number I could find came from IEEE Spectrum, which puts the power consumption of the D-Wave 2X (from 2015) at “slightly less than 25 kilowatts”, with practically all the power going to the refrigeration unit keeping it within a hair’s breadth of absolute zero, and the processor itself using “a tiny fraction of a microwatt”.

Given the minimal amount of info, and the AI bubble still being fresh in the public’s mind, I expect quantum systems will face resistance from environmental groups. Between the obscene power/water consumption of AI datacentres, the shitload of pollution said datacentres cause in places like Memphis, and the industry’s attempts to increase said consumption whenever possible, any notion that tech cares about the environment is dead in the (polluted) water, and attempts to sell the tech as energy efficient/environmentally friendly will likely fall on deaf ears.

  • froztbyte@awful.systemsEnglish
    7·
    1 day ago

    One of quantum’s big selling points is its purported ability to break the current encryption algorithms in use today - for a couple examples, Shor’s algorithm can reportedly double-tap public key cryptography schemes such as RSA, and Grover’s algorithm promises to supercharge brute-force attacks on symmetric-key cryptography.

    once again. you’re posting fluff about things you do not appear to understand at all. we already have zitron shouting loudly about things he only partly understands, we don’t need another.

    more widely, your posts are really starting to verge on crank spam. the sheer volume of them stands out, and that they’re all this … barely-anywhere fluff stuff doesn’t help

    so, for my part, I ask you: please post better

    • David Gerard@awful.systemsEnglish
      5·
      1 day ago

      I concur this series could do with a bit more focus.

      (When I realise I don’t understand the fine details, I ask people and then listen to the answers for useful bits. I have a half-written draft here that I’ll be posting to MoreWrite when it’s done specifically to get that stuff right.)