IBM is Getting Ready to Scale Quantum Computing (msn.com) 74
IBM spent a decade "building, testing and improving" quantum computing, reports the Wall Street Journal.
"This year, the company is laying the groundwork to turn that technology into a fully-fledged, scalable business from an expensive science project." IBM said last month it plans to form a new independent subsidiary called Anderon, a foundry to produce the silicon wafers needed to make quantum-computing processors. The venture is seeded by a $1 billion investment from the Trump administration and another $1 billion of IBM's own cash. Anderon will give the company a new line of business in selling wafers to other quantum-computing companies. It will also provide a steady stream of wafers to continue developing its own quantum technology, positioning IBM to capture part of what the Boston Consulting Group projects will be a $90 billion to $170 billion market for quantum-computing providers by 2040...
The company also plans to spend an additional $9 billion over five years to advance the final stages of its quest to build a quantum-mechanics-powered computer capable and reliable enough for widespread use, a goal known as fault tolerance. That computer, named Starling, is being targeted for 2029. With Anderon, IBM is thinking beyond Starling, or even a more powerful quantum computer planned for 2033.
"This year, the company is laying the groundwork to turn that technology into a fully-fledged, scalable business from an expensive science project." IBM said last month it plans to form a new independent subsidiary called Anderon, a foundry to produce the silicon wafers needed to make quantum-computing processors. The venture is seeded by a $1 billion investment from the Trump administration and another $1 billion of IBM's own cash. Anderon will give the company a new line of business in selling wafers to other quantum-computing companies. It will also provide a steady stream of wafers to continue developing its own quantum technology, positioning IBM to capture part of what the Boston Consulting Group projects will be a $90 billion to $170 billion market for quantum-computing providers by 2040...
The company also plans to spend an additional $9 billion over five years to advance the final stages of its quest to build a quantum-mechanics-powered computer capable and reliable enough for widespread use, a goal known as fault tolerance. That computer, named Starling, is being targeted for 2029. With Anderon, IBM is thinking beyond Starling, or even a more powerful quantum computer planned for 2033.
Next bubble (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Only that this one has been a failure for about 50 years now.
Re:[QC] failure for about 50 years now. (Score:1)
It's a success if you observe the right cats.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Next bubble (Score:4, Informative)
Only that this one has been a failure for about 50 years now.
I'm not sure how that could possibly be the case. Feynman suggested the idea of a quantum computer in a 1982 paper. Yuri Manin suggested a similar idea slightly before then which makes the entire idea about 46 years old. There wasn't any substantial work on the idea aside from a few black box algorithms until Shor's algorithm in 1994 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor's_algorithm [wikipedia.org] which is from just 32 years ago. And substantial money going into physical implementations of quantum computing doesn't really start until around the mid 2000s . I'm also not sure why you would think it any of it is a failure given the rapid pace in improvement of the technology. Empirically, quantum computers are improving at an exponential or even faster than exponential rate for coherence times, number of qubits, and other metrics https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-nevens-law-describe-quantum-computings-rise-20190618/ [quantamagazine.org]. The algorithmic end also continues to improve rapidly, especially with error correction, and we're just moving into the zone where the error correction and the physical systems are both good enough that we can physically implement quantum logical systems with real error correction. See e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-026-10628-y [nature.com] It is easy to forget how exponential growth looks: it looks slow and not impressive until it just takes off. We saw this just recently with the rise of solar power and grid storage which were both struggling and in the last 2 years have now taken off so much that they are rapidly dominating much of the electric grid.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual research started earlier. It was just not called Quantum Computing yet, but people did try to make qbits (which were not called that yet) and did try to do computations with them.
Obviously, with the continued failure of the subject, many involved in it have reason to lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop projecting. It is not helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual research started earlier. It was just not called Quantum Computing yet, but people did try to make qbits (which were not called that yet) and did try to do computations with them. Obviously, with the continued failure of the subject, many involved in it have reason to lie.
I'm not sure why you think this is the case, and would be very interested in evidence or citations for this. It is possible you are confusing quantum computing work with earlier work on Bell tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test [wikipedia.org] which do involve some of the same physical components that would eventually be used for quantum computing. In any event, this still doesn't address the point about exponential improvement: even if you had the same tech being worked on a decade or two decades before it work s
Re: (Score:2)
I talked to somebody doing their PhD in this area in 1994. They had been at it for several years and the topic got pushed in some local research groups, specifically as computing mechanism. Now, it may be that it is just 40 years of failure, not 50, but does it even matter? Incidentally, Feynman pushed the idea in 1981 and it was not completely new back then.
There is no "exponential" growth happening in QCs. If you look at the timeline of computing records for actual computing problems, not QCs "simulating
Re: (Score:2)
I talked to somebody doing their PhD in this area in 1994. They had been at it for several years and the topic got pushed in some local research groups, specifically as computing mechanism. Now, it may be that it is just 40 years of failure, not 50, but does it even matter?
So the evidence is essentially "trust me, I had one conversation 30 years ago?" Would you take that sort of level of evidence seriously if someone else made it? They don't even need to be being deliberately dishonest; human memories are just really fallible. I wouldn't trust my own memory from a conversation with a PhD from 30 years ago. But even more to the point, it also isn't terribly relevant to the central question at hand, since the claim isn't there wasn't no one working in these areas, but that ther
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot pick a handful of data points and then choose the type of curve to fit them, and that's especially a problem when you have only a few data points. You are using literally three data point. For any tech thing, if you ended up with a curve that shows negative progress, that should be a problem with your model. This is essentially the same thing the Trump people tried to do when they tried to do a cubic fit for covid deaths to argue that deaths would soon drop to zero https://www.vox.com/2020/5/8/2... [vox.com]. But since you don't see where the exponential estimate is coming from, you could take the step of clicking through the link I gave which discussed it. But if you want here are other sources. For example, https://physics.aps.org/articl... [aps.org] discusses how decoherence times have gone up at an exponential rate, increasing by roughly a factor of 10 every 3 years. You are correct that successful use of Shor's algorithm has not gone up but that also shouldn't be surprising. Shor's algorithm has a pretty big jump in the number of logical qubits needed when you increase from very small n to medium sized n. Using those two data points to conclude anything about what is going on right now isn't useful. Once it does hit even n around 105 or so, we should expect then quick improvement from there.
What data points do you have to support exponential growth of logical qubit count with time?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Irrational belief in technological progress just makes you look dumb. More so when you are loud about it.
Oh, and incidentally, all those "Shor's algorithm" records are fake. They are done with the dishonestly named "compiled Shor's algorithm", which means the compiled knows the end result and there is no branching in the code. Number if actual, honest quantum factorizations at this time: None at all. And that is at the very least 30 years in.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrational belief in technological progress just makes you look dumb. More so when you are loud about it.
Disagreement with gweirhir is not the same as irrational belief in progress. And I hope that people, whether I disagree with them or not, express their opinions; I might learn something. Unfortunately, when the substantive evidence someone gives for their position is a claim to have talked with an unnamed PhD student 32 years ago, it isn't easy to have a substantial dialogue. I might be wrong on the timeline for when quantum computing will take off; predicting technological development and rate of progress
Re: (Score:2)
You should probably look up the name "Paul Benioff" by the way.
And be thankful that some other people are less critical of minor mistakes than you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Next bubble (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The smart-phone boom saved many techies from the wrath of the mortgage bubble econ crash. Even if a dev didn't work on phones, other devs moving to phones kept general dev demand up.
"Powerful" quantum computer (Score:3)
A more more powerful quantum computer is still a toy. Wake me up when they create one with even 100 reliable logical qubits.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A more more powerful quantum computer is still a toy. Wake me up when they create one with even 100 reliable logical qubits.
Wake up. [caltech.edu]
Re: (Score:1)
You have no clue what you are talking about. Shor's algorithm with something like 18 qbits (to factor 35) remains out of reach at this time. What you reference is not a QC.
Re: (Score:2)
You are retarded. Not intellectually disabled, not slightly askew, but genuinely fucked up in the head. What a rare treat for the rest of us. I'm going to go ahead and trust Cal Tech on this one.
This is from someone who doesn't understand the difference between a qubit and a logical qubit.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to feel ashamed. If you want, I can teach you the difference between the two. I can also provide English language services to assist you as well.
Please yes, I would love an explanation how your reference is responsive to "Wake me up when they create one with even 100 reliable logical qubits." given the experimental device you referenced did no such thing.
Re: (Score:2)
You are retarded. Not intellectually disabled, not slightly askew, but genuinely fucked up in the head. What a rare treat for the rest of us. I'm going to go ahead and trust Cal Tech on this one.
This is from someone who doesn't understand the difference between a qubit and a logical qubit.
Fits nicely with their statements, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
So while it is cool, it's like a CPU that's missing the ALU (that is, not a CPU).
Re: "Powerful" quantum computer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "Powerful" quantum computer (Score:2)
I just did some research. It does seem like 100 logical qubits might be possible by 2035. Possible, but not a sure thing.
Re: (Score:2)
You are vastly overestimating QC progress.
Re: "Powerful" quantum computer (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
"... where entanglement shapes the behavior of matter at every scale."
Wave functions never collapse in SoCal! There goes & not-goes your two-olive martini.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, classical algorithms can do that already pretty well, even if they just fake it. Not that the hype-fuelled morons would be able to tell the difference.
Re: (Score:2)
While stupid people like to call people stupid, you seem to be unaware that there are also smart and insightful people that just have had it and call stupid people stupid. In the second case with high confidence scores.
Incidentally, comparing me to a current US cabinet official is about as removed from even the lowest possible levels of insight as it could be. Maybe do some minimal research on people before leveling completely disconnected insults? That way I would at least get a laugh instead of a feeling
Re: (Score:2)
I've actually programmed quantum computers, and I have to admit this is correct. We have access to more qubits now than we can effectively use because of the rapid accumulation of noise and decoherence in quantum processing. No one seems to have achieved much with Quantum Error Correction, and schemes to get it to work better (like Cat qubits) remain theoretical.
There might be a breakthrough someday, and when it happens everyone will know quickly, but there is still a lot of work to do to get there. Or ther
Lying about it does not make it any better (Score:2)
No, IBM is not going to scale this tech. They and many others have been trying that for 50 years, with no QC that deserves the name in sight. No idea why they are now lying about this tech being withing their grasp. They have done that a couple of times before, with about as much justification.
In actual reality, the QC factoring record is still 21. That means 5 bit. Shor's algorithm needs about 15 qbits for that, and the entanglement needs to survive a not too long calculation. Note that they tried 35 (i.e.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that they tried 35 (i.e. 6 bits at 18 qbits needed) and failed.
That's a real shame, because I've always wondered what the prime factors of 35 might be.
I'm still holding out hope that they manage to figure this out during my lifetime.
Re: Lying about it does not make it any better (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends what you mean
The 'health' portfolio was bundled into an old Thompson Reuters brand and sold off unceremoniously. It's now called Merative L.P, it's basically a company that builds medical research and diagnostic pipelines with limited real world success... This was after the actual funders, a group of cancer research centres in the US, pulled the plug on ~7 years of promises that never eventuated about training models to do analysis of diagnostic images...
That is... the models and pipelines existed.
Who was working on QC in 1976? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I talked to QC experts towards the end of the 1980s. No, it was not "just a few theorists". They were trying to build qbits even back then and the efforts were quite serious.
Re: (Score:2)
IBM is ready... (Score:2)
IBM is ready, yeah "everyone" is ready for the disco comeback.
A friend of mine talked with this guy on LinkedIn who was selling "tech training" about quantum computing, declaring "RSA is dead." Doing scam training on some new technology that is the next thing and we have to get ready for...
Last time it was "blockchain" and how its going to change the world like cold-fusion, room temperature superconductors, etc.
The IBM CEO, CTO, and all those "experts" a song...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Although the
Re: (Score:2)
RSA is dead.
If you /. morons would not think your 30 year old university knowledge is still up to date, then you would start watching what is actually going on in the world around you.
The whole computing world is shifting to "quantum safe" encryption, this is basically the main agenda of all western nations who have centralized legislation.
Because: we are all certain, that 2035 is to late! We have to shift at least in administration and research long before that. As it most likely not the case that the next
Re: IBM is ready... (Score:2)
Hey! We can use AI for this!
Numbers Factorised by Shor's Algorithm15 (\(3 \times 5\)): First demonstrated in a landmark 2001 experiment by IBM and Stanford University using a 7-qubit Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) quantum computer. It has since been repeated across various quantum architectures.21 (\(3 \times 7\)): Factorised in 2012 by researchers using a photonic quantum computer. This remains the record for the largest number factored using a standard, non-compiled Shorâ(TM)s algorithm pipeline
So
No they're not (Score:2)
Actually, this indicates quite the opposite (Score:5, Interesting)
Companies don't spin off business lines into independent subsidiaries when they foresee lots of profits in the future... this is what they do when they're trying to cut their losses.
In other words - IBM is basically cutting their losses with regards to quantum computing. They may technically keep the unit alive, but they're gonna tighten expenditures significantly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again? (Score:3)
Didn't they just do the very same two years ago, slightly differently worded?
Sure they will. (Score:2)
"Right after we finish this next round of layoffs, we promise. "
Government subsidy (Score:3)
Just RTFS describes what's happening here. Only tangentially related to "Quantum Computing". Trump administration gave IBM $1billion dollars to spend on ...basically anything as long as the Subject Line contains the word quantum. IBM says that the will kick in another $1 billion of their own...then may $9 billion down the road. I doubt that will occur. But honestly this government gift just pays for the SVP to get promoted to CEO of the new offshoot, his lackies likewise get promotions. They will hold up a recycled RISC chip to the camera and declare quantum supremacy. Someone in the administration who got Trump to sign the paperwork will get their payola, everyone wins!
This is why the government picking winners is bad policy all around. This $1 billion was better off being unspent, versus creating a weird market distortion, or more likely just being redirected to a bunch of rich, but useless execs that should be retiring already. I say this as someone who made a pretty penny on Intel stock after Trump decided the US government should give them $9 billion free money too. **
**Previous admin with their green new deal, etc was likewise bad policy throwing away free money at pointless projects that we are increasingly unable to afford. Comparing Trump / Biden is apples and oranges. Trump is a rotten, senile apple with the appearance of a rotten orange. Biden was just senile
Re: (Score:2)
This is why the government picking winners is bad policy all around.
There are good reasons not to have the government "pick winners", but this isn't a good example. This is a historically-incompetent and utterly-corrupt administration picking winners, and that's guaranteed to go badly. What actually works reasonably well is government grants to the National Science Foundation, and letting the NSF evaluate grant proposals and dole out the money on scientific merit.
How do I quantum vide code? (Score:2)
Just asking for a friend how to get ahead of the competition so he can put 10 years of quantum vibe coding on his resume.
Will fit nicely with agentic loop engineering and other things he has already +20 years experience with.
Re: (Score:2)
I just asked Google in AI mode "qiskit bell state" and it gave me the code.
from qiskit import QuantumCircuit
from qiskit.quantum_info import Statevector
from qiskit.visualization import plot_histogram
# 1. Create a quantum circuit with 2 qubits and 2 classical bits
qc = QuantumCircuit(2, 2)
# 2. Apply a Hadamard gate to qubit 0 to create a superposition
qc.h(0)
# 3. Apply a CNOT gate with qubit 0 as control and qubit 1 as target
qc.cx(0, 1)
# 4. (Optional) View the ideal quantum statevector before measurement
state =
What it can do (Score:2)
Can they...? (Score:2)
Can they factor a number larger than 21 with QC yet?