Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
Comparing quantum computing to time machines or faster-than-light travel is unfair. In order for the latter to exist, our understanding of physics would have to be wrong in a major way. Quantum computing presumes that our understanding of physics is correct. Making it work is "only" an engineering problem, in the sense that Newton's laws say that a rocket can reach the Moon, so the Apollo program was "only" a engineering project. But breaking any ciphers with it is a long way off.
I didn't interpret the slides as an attack on quantum computing per se, but rather an attack on over-enthusiastic assertions of its near-future implications. If the likelihood of near-future QC breaking real-world cryptography is so extremely low, it's IMO okay to make a point by comparing it to things which are (probably) impossible. It's an exaggeration of course, and as you point out the analogy isn't correct in that way, but I still think it makes a good point.
What I find insightful about the comparison is that it puts the finger on a particular brain worm of the tech world: the unshakeable belief that every technical development will grow exponentially in its capabilities. So as soon as the most basic version of something is possible, it is believed that the most advanced forms of it will follow soon after. I think this belief was created because it's what actually happened with semiconductors, and of course the bold (in its day) prediction that was Moore's law, and then later again, the growth of the internet.
And now this thinking is applied to everything all the time, including quantum computers (and, as I pointed to in my earlier post, AI), driven by hype, by FOMO, by the fear of "this time I don't want to be among those who didn't recognize it early". But there is no inherent reason why a development should necessarily follow such a trajectory. That doesn't mean of course that it's impossible or won't get there eventually, just that it may take much more time.
So in that line of thought, I think it's ok to say "hey look everyone, we have very real actual problems in cryptography that need solving right now, and on the other hand here's the actual state and development of QC which you're all worrying about, but that stuff is so far away you might just as well worry about time machines, so please let's focus more on the actual problems of today." (that's at least how I interpret the presentation).
heh yup. I think the most recent one (somewhere in the last year) was something like 12-bit rsa? stupendously far off from being a meaningful thing
I’ll readily admit to being a cryptography mutt and a qc know-barely-anything, and even from my limited understanding the assessment of where people are at (with how many qubits they’ve managed to achieve in practical systems) everything is hilariously woefully far off ito attacks
that doesn’t entirely invalidate pqc and such (since the notion there is not merely defending against today/soon but also a significant timeline)
one thing I am curious about (and which you might’ve seen or be able to talk about, blake): is there any kind of known correlation between qubits and viable attacks? I realize part of this quite strongly depends on the attack method as well, but off the cuff I have a guess (“intuition” is probably the wrong word) that it probably scales some weird way (as opposed to linear/log/exp)