
US takes first step toward a quantum computing workforce - breck
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612071/us-takes-first-step-towards-creating-a-quantum-computing-workforce/
======
crispyambulance
I think it's a weeee bit early to start developing a "quantum workforce"
beyond math and physics PHD programs!

Can't wait to see the Intelli-J plugin, though!

~~~
currymj
there already is one for Visual Studio!

[https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/quantum/development-
kit](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/quantum/development-kit)

It's actually a reasonable way to play around with simulations of quantum
algorithms, much nicer than multiplying huge matrices which is typically what
you'd otherwise do when learning. But it is a little silly that we have a
quantum IDE before a usable quantum computer has been built.

~~~
chillacy
Ada Lovelace is said to have written the first computer algorithm for the
Analytical Engine even though it wasn't built, though I did some googling and
wasn't able to find the text itself.

~~~
rhelmer
This was actually discussed on HN previously, with a link to the text:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17797003](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17797003)

------
caymanjim
Forget about quantum computing at scale: has anyone actually developed a
functional quantum device that unequivocally proves that it's both viable and
that it solves a problem faster than conventional physics can explain? To the
best of my knowledge, the answer is no. It's premature to invest heavily in
something this speculative. I'm all for investing in research and science for
the sake of science, but we didn't invest billions in going to the moon before
we knew that rockets worked.

~~~
sp332
We're really close. Actually Intel announced a 49-qubit quantum computer which
would have beaten existing classical platforms, but just after that, another
team at IBM [edit: not Intel] made an algorithmic breakthrough and simulated
56 qubits on a classical supercomputer.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy)

~~~
stcredzero
Can this 56 qubit computer break DES faster than conventional computers? Could
it break an arbitrary 56 bit block cipher faster than conventional computers?
Or is it limited in a way which limits it to specific problems? I suspect the
answer is the latter.

~~~
caymanjim
I'm not expecting quantum computers to actually do anything faster than
conventional computers for many years, and that's fine; making things
incrementally better is usually much easier than making them work in the first
place.

People have been simulating quantum circuits as proof-of-concept for quantum
algorithms, and D-Wave has a "quantum annealing" machine (although a
preliminary glance suggests there's skepticism about whether that involves any
provable quantum effect), and there are frequent reports about pushing the
limits of entangled qubit count, but I'm wondering if anyone's actually made a
quantum device that solves even a specific problem faster than non-quantum
physics would allow (hence my original comment along those lines), rather than
faster than conventional hardware (which could take years or decades to
match).

------
ahelwer
For the skeptical, there are two quantum computing job tracks which can
operate independently for the next while:

(1) The engineering and basic physics research necessary to build a real,
working quantum computer of high enough quality (low error rate) and size
(number of qbits) for real-world use. Scott Aaronson believes we won't have a
sufficiently-advanced quantum computer to, for example, run Shor's algorithm
against a real-world key size for at least 15 years.

(2) The development of quantum algorithms, error-correction schemes,
cryptography, and as-yet-unknown use-cases; the implementation thereof in a
large, well-designed software library; finally, the development of education
materials to ease onboarding of the existing software engineering workforce to
quantum computing. Microsoft has an actual quantum software engineering job
listed, at this very moment:
[https://careers.microsoft.com/us/en/job/503847/Quantum-
Softw...](https://careers.microsoft.com/us/en/job/503847/Quantum-Software-
Engineer)

Now, it's completely possible that (1) just won't pan out and we'll never,
ever have a quantum computer advanced enough to work on real-world problems,
in which case all investment into both (1) and (2) will have been a complete
waste. However, given that we have good reason to believe (1) will succeed,
why should we put (2) on hold for the next 15 years? Do we really want to
finally have a shiny new quantum computer, then not have anything to run on
it?

For an overview of the current state of quantum computing and what we can do
with current NISQ (noisy intermediate-scale quantum) computers, there's a good
survey paper by John Preskill called _Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and
beyond_ : [https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.00862](https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.00862)

------
Endama
My understanding of Quantum Computers is that the first country to
successfully develop quantum computers at scale will experience dominance in
cryptography until other nation-state actors can catch up. Isn't quantum
technology a national security threat then?

Seems we should be investing a tremendous amount into quantum computing
research publicly.

~~~
jcranmer
There's some caveats to mention here:

First, quantum computers don't scale as well as classical computers. You can
take two 64-bit computers, connect them together and emulate a 128-bit
computer, in classical computers. Or you could take one 64-bit computer and
emulate 128-bits taking twice as long to compute it. But in classical
computers, if you need 128 qubits for a computation, having even a 127-bit
qubit computer leaves you dead in the water. In practical terms, Shor's
algorithm requires O(n lg n) qubits, so you need thousands of qubits to try to
break computer. You also can't parallelize Grover's algorithm by farming it
out to N quantum computers.

Second, only a relatively small (but important) set of cryptography is
actually affected by quantum computers. Symmetric ciphers generally only admit
the quadratic speedup by Grover's algorithm, so breaking AES-128 requires 2^64
time on a quantum computer instead of 2^128 (and as mentioned above, having
more computers doesn't help speed up the search). Where exponential speedup is
available is mostly in public-key cryptography and key-exchange protocols.
Forward secrecy (which is increasingly the norm in TLS connections)
essentially means you have to crack each individual key exchange to read past
conversations, not just the private keys.

Third, as others have mentioned, people are working on post-quantum
cryptography. By the time that practical quantum computers for breaking
RSA/ECC crypto come around, it's likely that the most useful things to break
won't be breakable.

~~~
andrewla
> In practical terms, Shor's algorithm requires O(n lg n) qubits

Wait, is that 'n' the number being factor or the number of bits?

If it is the number being factored, then quantum computing will effectively
never be a threat; since you would need 200 million bits in order to factor a
32-bit number.

If it is the number of bits then why haven't we seen any new results? The
current record is held by factoring 21, a 5 bit number. There are numerous
claims that people have built quantum computers in the 49-qubit range. Why
aren't we seeing successful factorings of 17-bit numbers as a matter of
course?

I don't count here the extension of the 21 result to larger numbers that yield
the same period-finding problem, but rather direct approaches using the
quantum computers that exist now.

~~~
abdullahkhalids
You have to implement quantum error correction on these 49 physical qubits to
avoid errors, which leaves you with a lot fewer logical qubits. Also you have
to take into account the constants.

~~~
andrewla
So how many "effective" qbits are there in these systems that I see hyped up?
Intel's press release for its 49-bit system [1] does not mention anything
about "logical qubits". IBM's 50-qubit system [2] similarly does not hedge
here.

I see a question on stack overflow [3] that has some information, and actually
claims an O(n) bound on the number of qubits, which is much tighter than the
O(nlogn) number, but that just makes my question about why the record for
Shor's algorithm has not yet been broken.

I mean, forget about "quantum supremacy" \-- where quantum anything?

[1] [https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-advances-quantum-
neuro...](https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-advances-quantum-neuromorphic-
computing-research/)

[2] [https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609451/ibm-raises-the-
bar...](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609451/ibm-raises-the-bar-
with-a-50-qubit-quantum-computer/)

[3] [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41397576/how-many-
qubits...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41397576/how-many-qubits-do-i-
need-to-factor-15-using-shors-algorithm)

------
travisoneill1
> In theory, a quantum machine with just a few hundred qubits should be able
> to run calculations that would be inconceivable using traditional hardware.

According to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_quantum_computing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_quantum_computing)
Google has a 72-qubit system which I would expect to already be game changer
if the above quote is true, but have heard about the applications of quantum
computing only in the future tense. Does the power of a quantum computer scale
linearly with number of qubits? Does the difficulty in manufacturing scale
linearly with number of qubits?

~~~
abdullahkhalids
In the quote, "few hundred qubits", qubits are logical qubits. Google's
72-qubits are physical qubits. You implement error correction on the physical
qubits, after which you are left with a lot fewer logical qubits, to do your
actual computation with.

> Does the power of a quantum computer scale linearly with number of qubits?

It scales linearly with the number of logical qubits, in the same sense the
power of a turing machine scales linearly with the size of the tape. Also, for
a realistic system of hundreds of qubits, you will need tens of thousands of
physical qubits.

> Does the difficulty in manufacturing scale linearly with number of qubits?

If you want the ability to do entangling operations on any two qubits, however
far apart they are physically, the manufacturing difficulty scales
quadratically with the number of qubits at least. However, you can choose to
only have the ability to do entangling operations on near by qubits, and use
swap operations to move the state of the qubits around. This will reduce
manufacturing difficulty scaling, but will increase the time of any
computation you perform.

------
joycian
Can someone knowledgeable in the field explain to me what the implications of
a deterministic universe would be for quantum computing? Correlated noise
ruining any useful computation?

(I know about Bell's theorem but I think it uses circular reasoning so I am
not a fan).

------
bcatanzaro
A "looming quantum engineering gap"? Seems like you need a working technology
before you can have a looming engineering gap. Which we don't have yet.

I'm surprised they didn't mention a looming gap of cryogenic maintenance
technicians. I have no idea how a server farm operating at 15 millikelvin is
to be maintained.

~~~
stcredzero
Mr. President, we must not allow... a mine shaft gap!

------
commanderpepper
So what would be the first step in becoming a quantum engineer?

~~~
jazzyjackson
In my opinion, browse youtube for "microsoft q#" and check out their quantum
development kit.

There will be the quantum mechanic quants that build new algorithms, but I
think the Q# kit will be the SciKit of quantum and getting familiar with the
classes and methods they provide will be a good step towards future-
employability.

