Quantum computing is a reality!

[tulamide]

But where potential harms can be envisioned in advance, it is reasonable to debate them and to consider whether or how we should safeguard against them.

Basically the right thought. However, you can't debate or consider how to safeguard against something that doesn't exist. There is no quantum computer that decrypts code, and so we don't even know how it is realized. Therefore counter-measures aren't in sight and every talk would be just hypothetical.
For now, we should instead enjoy a whole new technique coming to life. And we are the generations that may witness it!

Only those who have access to the technology will be able to do so, which will only be the rich and powerful to begin with.

This is your main argument, and I just don't understand where you get that from? This quantum machine is the very first. The very first computer wasn't even built without intentions, but with the sole purpose of decrypting the highest standard encryption code at that time, which was created with the enigma. A bad intention (albeit for a good cause). Yet, look at where we are now. If I told you in 1939, that everyonme in the world will own his own computer, you would have answered, that they are as big as a house and are extremely expensive and therefore only the rich and powerful will have access to it.

Data mining on a massive scale is already being used for the purposes of attempting to manipulate people's opinions and rating their social capital.

Data mining is a totally different topic that's not enabled through quantum computing, but is a reality already. Btw., you are posting your password for this website via unsecured (non-encrypted) data communication. Literally everyone can read it. Shouldn't that be of more concern?

One only has to look at interference in online freedoms in China and elsewhere to see how this can be used on a much wider scale for the identification and suppression of dissidents and human rights campaigners, for example. The Chinese state is already well on the way to constant government surveillance of social media to rate every citizen's conformity to political dogma - and the consequences for those who don't conform or who choose not to participate can be extremely unpleasant.

Again, this a reality that is not enabled by quantum computing. It is enabled by dictatorships, and those don't care about avaiulable tech - they reach their goals with whatever ways ARE available. Quantum computing neither changes nor helps fighting it. It's something to be fought in the minds of people. Only if you change the view of people towards other people, that's when you are able to fight such behaviour. Btw., this is true as well for monopolies. Their intention is money instead of power, but the rulebook is exactly the same.

Hence campaigns to safeguard internet privacy and to resist pressure on corporations to include "back doors" into their encryption routines. Of course, outlawing such decryption also has it's negative aspects which we should debate as a society - for example, making it harder to identify predatory paedophiles' on-line activities.

I often hear this argument from people, who are talking about it in comments posted on Facebook or Twitter. Of course I can't take it serious, if they use the very same services, that they are pretending to fight against.
To make this clear: privacy is absolutely necessary, be it on the internet or in the physical world. It's just so astounding, how selective this argument is used. For example, you are from England: London is covered in cameras, you can't take two steps without being filmed constantly. This state surveillance of "1984"-proportions is at least as terrifying as the attacks on internet privacy. Yet, all the people of England are fine with it.
When you think that a grey mass of rich people behind closed doors working on forcefully invading your internet privacy is the real danger, let me update you: The real danger is that the people are giving their valuable privacy to services voluntarily. Whenever Google offers a service (Maps, Translate, gmail, etc.) it is not about philanthropic free services for the good of all people. It is a bait to lure you in. Each time you use a service, you give up your privacy and donate informations about you. That's how data mining works. Not with fierce guys in a cult fighting you.
However, this has nothing to do with the invention of quantum computing. It won't change it, it won't help fighting it. It is a matter of either pure capitalism or dictatorships. Quantum computing doesn't make it worse. It adds another tool for both sides, that's all.

You may have missed it, but securing information using quantum technology is far ahead of Google and their Sycamore chip. For example, quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger from Vienna, Austria, started working on quantum secured networking already in the end-90's. Two things evolved from that. First, based on his groundwork, which is of course publicly available, China made their own research and, at the end of 2016 launched a satellite with quantum-secured communication. And Zeilinger himself established a 5 PCs network (note: standard PCs, not quantum computers), with fully quantum secured communication about a year ago. So don't think the "good" side wouldn't be prepared as well - without being rich and powerful.

If that is "fear-mongering" then so be it; I prefer to call it the "precautionary principle"!

And I prefer the "scientific principle"!

[trogluddite]

...you would have answered...

Can you read anyone's mind as well as you can read mine? Maybe we should start a thread about whether your amazing ESP powers are in some way related to quantum mechanics!

I merely suggested a hypothetical, though reasonably foreseeable, scenario in which this technology might make a certain kind of nefarious behaviour more effective. I did not suggest that anyone should panic and rush out to the tin-foil hat shop! It was just a thought experiment which I thought might be interesting to debate, that is all (and I would think no less of anyone who doesn't care for such speculation). If my initial post led you to read more into it than that, then I can only apologise for my poor choice of words, and (intended to be) somewhat playful rhetorical style.

"Reasonably foreseeable"? My personal opinion is that it is. Factorisation of primes is a well known target for quantum computing (for the most part, of course, because it is a very interesting problem in the complexity of computation). Easy factorisation of primes would make the decryption of currently common encryption methods far easier. Better decryption methods are an obvious temptation to intelligence agencies - sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. This is mere speculation, for sure; but not beyond the bounds of what is already being researched, nor lacking historical precedent.

This is your main argument...

It must have been quite a good argument, because your example agreed with it! I said "at first", and digital computers were indeed "at first" only available to government agencies such as the military - later large commercial organisations - and not for nearly four decades as systems suitable for a regular citizen's home. This is hardly an unusual situation when large steps forward are made in any technology.

Most of your other points, I am far more educated about than you seem to be assuming, and for the most part, I agree with you entirely (and never contradicted). People are indeed the problem, in a wide variety of ways, and I find it just as shocking as you do how easily most people have accepted and played along with such intrusions into their privacy. Nevertheless, most societies do restrict access to certain technologies in order to deny them to people who don't play nicely and/or to protect people from their own worst impulses. I share your wish that we could live in a society where this were not felt necessary sometimes, and the ethical implications are, of course, highly subjective.

You may be glad to hear that I have no further interest in being responded to in a way which comes across as presumptuous and condescending. Feel free to chalk that up as a "win" if you like; I doubt that the straw men that you're mostly arguing against will take it too badly.

[guyman]

Fellas, from the sound of this conversation, everyone here appears to have good intentions and high hopes for humanity. This difference of opinion is almost a waste of time. I'll keep it real, one of my largest fears is the increase in computational ability. If you don't think these technologies won't be abused by those with the power to wield them, then you are naïve. All of our technologies have both bettered our lives, and increased our abilities to commit horrors. Power is power. Power CAN (and will) CORRUPT SOME.


Let's stay in key and keep our minds on building things that inspire the best of our nature !!

[tulamide]

...you would have answered...

Can you read anyone's mind as well as you can read mine? Maybe we should start a thread about whether your amazing ESP powers are in some way related to quantum mechanics!

Not needed, since I just repeated your very own words.

You may be glad to hear that I have no further interest in being responded to in a way which comes across as presumptuous and condescending. Feel free to chalk that up as a "win" if you like; I doubt that the straw men that you're mostly arguing against will take it too badly.

Who's presumptuous and condescending now? And obviously you are just as good at reading minds as I am. It tells more about you than me that you think in terms of "win", when debating.
It's funny how some people begin to react offended, when I don't share their view and bring arguments. Instead of reacting to them, they prefer to attack me and get butthurt.
Your answer contained not a single argument, not regarding London, not regarding the fact that all your examples have nothing to do with the invention of a first working quantum machine. Nor any other of my arguments. But that's fine. I prefer a debate with people who actually have arguments and not just a few keywords. That happens when people underestimate my knowledge. It would be easier for me to do it in German; the language barrier probably paints a picture of me being a simple man.

[tulamide]

Fellas, from the sound of this conversation, everyone here appears to have good intentions and high hopes for humanity. This difference of opinion is almost a waste of time. I'll keep it real, one of my largest fears is the increase in computational ability. If you don't think these technologies won't be abused by those with the power to wield them, then you are naïve. All of our technologies have both bettered our lives, and increased our abilities to commit horrors. Power is power. Power CAN (and will) CORRUPT SOME.


Let's stay in key and keep our minds on building things that inspire the best of our nature !!

Thanks you for the right spirit!

[Tzarls]

So.... When will we see Flowstone Quantum Edition? Better start porting right now, because we know how long that can take...

[guyman]

See... this is one of teh many reasons flowstone is just not a viable development platform moving forward. SOOOO many systems moved on to quantum AGES AGO... I honestly though 64-bit would have been obsolete. I love the ease of use, but without quantum, how can I create filters with the right level of precision to assist Kanye West?

Can somebody get MyCo on this???
Will FSQuantum feature Consciousness Hosting??

[tulamide]

My future self just called me. Bad news. Flowstone 4.1.1 will only support 32 qbits and VST 10.5 won't be touched before VST 3.5 is working. But don't get the wrong impression:
MyCo's grandsons are working their asses off to finish 4.1.1, before the new black hole computing is out.


On a more serious note, if you are still interested in more about the topic, here's the wonderful Stephen Fry on "Quantum Supremacy & AI"
https://youtu.be/92Ntk4niqPo

I love this comment on above video: "Just in case don't show Quantum AI Terminator or The Matrix"

[Spogg]

That video was remarkably good tulamide. I now have a much better idea about the subject, so thank you for that.

With reference to the debate above, it’s interesting and, I think, relevant that he did touch upon negative as well as positive potential outcomes. A person can use a hammer to help build a house, or kill someone.

Another thing that struck me was the somewhat counter-intuitive influence of hackers in moving things forward.

Cheers

Spogg

[tulamide]

With reference to the debate above, it’s interesting and, I think, relevant that he did touch upon negative as well as positive potential outcomes. A person can use a hammer to help build a house, or kill someone.

Exactly. That's what I meant when I said "it's just another tool for both sides".

A few words on OpenAI:
OpenAI, as referenced in the video, is a project of Elon Musk. It's called OPEN for a reason. We all have access to it, can inspect, how it is working, have access to the code, etc. This, for me, is the best way to deal with new techs. By not restricting access. And that's where the point of "hackers playing a positive part" is grounded. If we all have access, it will be less intimidating and provides us with possibilities to fight bad outcomes.