Quantum computing explained with a deck of cards | Dario Gil, IBM Research

[@crowejimatg]

The only thing missing here is an actual EXPLANATION OF QUANTUM COMPUTING!!!!

[@grantofat6438]

Because he doesn't know.

[@ketch___3666]

Exactly. SO disappointing

[@KpxUrz5745]

I'm glad your comment appeared first because it saved me from typing the exact same thing. He is a good speaker, but skips glibly over the real brass tacks of what the hypothetical quantum computers do, or how. I've seen a lot of videos on this topic, and they all end exactly the same: saying nothing concrete.

[@skiraf]

Now I want rice.

[@nigeltown6999]

Your statement is SO true - I have been asking the same thing for years. No one, in any similar presentation that I have seen, has EVER taken the time to explain how the "uncertainty" of multiple states within a "super position", allows you to caculate/output/derive an answer that makes any sort of logical sense.

[@michaelszuter5092]

Finally a detailed explanation! Now I understand why my retro encabulator was failing.

[@MrM1729]

Note to self -- read comments before watching video

[@azopene]

Totally agree.

[@serhat-c4o]

Totally totally agreeee

[@agentderekanderson8356]

:)

[@agentderekanderson8356]

A Maser ?

[@TheWormzerjr]

you all are already in possession of a quantum computer. its your brain

[@mawazoselemani614]

for the first time i understand someone when talking about Quantum computer...WOOOW!

[@MeddyEvalNight]

Explained with a deck of cards... this didn't really happen for me. Maybe it's a quantum explanation - something can be explained and not explained at exactly the same time.

[@RobertDeloyd]

yes! superposition :O

[@peterpetrov6522]

lol

[@wellwellwell6402]

Quantum explanation! Love it! I'll use it, thank you.

[@Mrbeahz1]

Mainly not explained.

[@frankfahrenheit9537]

All I need to do is get me a 4 core processor, that will get me the correct result also in a single step. Weird thing: an 8 core processor also needs a single step. What a shitty example. Why does a quantum computer only needs a single step?

[@ONRIPRESENCE]

2017 was the 1st time I accessed the IBM quantum computer on the cloud. I was just messing around with the interface, but then IBM Quantum paired with The Coding School in 2020 to launch a training program for those who wanted to learn quantum computing. I joined, got certified, and now I'm actively doing my PhD work on quantum processor chip fabrication. IBM's effort to get learners involved in quantum computing work has really opened doors for many of us. I appreciate these talks. -Onri

[@nathanmiller3682]

Opening doors alright they certainly are

[@us-Bahn]

Well that’s too bad. All your pipe fitting & welding ambitions gone straight down the drain …

[@eio4528]

So when computers become self aware and take over the planet, I'll know who is partially to blame.

[@ONRIPRESENCE]

No worries. I prefer more autonomy.

[@harleylawdude]

Is there an IBM any more?

[@dlorde]

Yeah, No. He doesn't _explain_ anything with a deck of cards, he simply _asserts_ that a quantum computer could find a 'hidden' card much faster than an ordinary computer; that's it. No explanation of how that works. Then he goes on to describe (poorly and superficially) how much better than a normal computer a quantum computer could be, and what they look like. It's a puff for IBM, that's all. The end.

[@AmbientMorality]

It sounded way too much like "unsorted search is instant or O(c) on a quantum computer", which isn't true at all. For 4 cards, only one iteration, but a larger input means more iterations.

[@lextr3110]

it's because he dont understand how it work.. he is a fake freak like all the other

[@mami1455]

Correct, it's THREE decks of cards. The title is misleading.

[@biggawinnacrapsa3870]

That is because the refining of quantum computing will devastate the worldwide gambling industry. Once the worldwide gambling industry collapses, the resultant chaos will lead to the end of society. Perfect universal justice - greed leads to downfall.

[@GodzillaGoesGaga]

Here’s my understanding. It refines probabilities on each pass. The problem is that environmental issues like any stray particle or thermodynamic event can completely screw it up. So basically you can’t accurately calculate a probability which means you don’t have a computer !!! Nature is not stable at the quantum level. It’s a probability cloud.

[@xsli2876]

on 5:57, on average it will take two and half turns to find out the Queen. "2.5" comes from the following little statistics calculation: if you find the Queen by one turn, the probability is 1/4 if you find the Queen by two turns, the probability is (3/4)x(1/3) if you find the Queen by three turns, the probability is (3/4)x(2/3)x(1/2) if you find the Queen by four turns, the probability is (3/4)x(2/3)x(1/2)x1 So the expected turns to find the Queen= 1x(1/4) + 2x(3/4)x(1/3) + 3x(3/4)x(2/3)x(1/2)+4x(3/4)x(2/3)x(1/2)x1 = 2.5

[@toruin3212]

He completely skips over the slide that explains Quantum computing. It flashes on screen for a tiny second and he completely bypasses it. What a joke!

[@lskdfoIS]

Must be terrible not being able to pause and read what was in front of you.

[@TediBearProductions]

Lmao, he actually does just skip through the slide that contains the info which is in the title

[@jamesd.salehi4752]

Ha ha. at 6:28

[@maurohuckins8364]

**_Paypie alpha video please_**

[@KevinSterns]

lsdkdfolS - only part of the slide is shown and even that is partly hidden behind the speaker. You knew this right? Or did you not watch the video before you chastised To Ruin for his pertinent and accurate remark.

[@ministerc9513]

This is literally the most complicated explanation I have ever heard on this topic. EDIT: Oh, I see I am not alone.

[@patrickm5217]

An explanation within an explanation without an explanation

[@wtfxd98]

Lol i couldn't understand a word after 9:30 😂😂

[@m.dwaynesteckley4832]

Yeah, it didn't really help. To me, understanding QC is like being a 10 year old watching an old 1960's adventure show like the original Mission Impossible when they use a "computer" to carry out one of their schemes. They put a piece of paper in one box, a bunch of lights blink, some mechanical sounds (of course), some magic happens, then the perfect solution, thing, replica etc. pops out of another box. To our modern selves it looks silly. But back then.... I don't think I'm alone feeling like that 10 year old back then. Even if an adult tried to explain it to me using adult educated words, I would still be as baffled as I am now regarding QC. All I really understand now is that QC isn't limited to binary (but we will still need binary to interpret the QC result), but I haven't seen yet an easily understood, description of how this exponential bits processing is done. I'm a programmer, so describing it from that point of view would be helpful. Show and explain a QC algorithm.

[@mescwb]

truly honest presentation on the subject, no "quantum learning" but focusing in the movement QC has done and will, congrats

[@johnnastrom9400]

Either you were watching a different presentation than the rest of us or you work for this guy and are just being a complete kiss-ass. He completely missed the mark here and did not explain anything.

[@mescwb]

I watched and YOU miss my point, I said he didnt "explain" how QC "works", the explain in the title is more like QC in the move, its history - but interpreting writing style doesnt seem to be a point in ranting detailists like you seem to be

[@johnpuddefoot7482]

Thank you. It's very clear and the "find the queen" problem illustrates the power well, but you skip the slide (at 6:29 in the video) where you talk about how entanglement and disentanglement solves the problem, which seems essential to understanding how it works.

[@MarkeyJester]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one... He explained the process of the binary classic version, then as it came to the quantum version, he just said "You can always solve it, in one shot", and then paused... Then continued as if it was clear and logically explained enough. What the hell? Explain the goddamn process already...

[@EnesNurkasa]

Markey Jester actually, classical computers also solve this problem with one shot. Your phone has probably 64 bit cpu so it can do up to 64 "cards" with just one shot. He just used this idea as analogy to describe how "powerful" will be quantum computers compared to classical one.

[@MarkeyJester]

As an assembly programmer, having programmed for x86, 68k, z80, SH-2, and some various other architectures, as well as a deep understanding of transistors and electrical involvement, of digital switching techniques using a series of logical gates (AND, OR, XOR, NOT), to perform mathematical and arithmetic functions... ...yes, I know. A better analogy would've been to use the binary length of the CPU, and say, "imagine you have four 64-bit groups, of which one of them is a specific value", had he have used that analogy, it would've detailed the exact same notion. But the question remains (**and was the initial point of my post which you appeared to have missed**), is that a "lack of" explanation to the process of a quantum computer being able to process all four of the 64-bit values at a single time. This is the information that was missed out, *and was the information I questioned*. I thank you for your clarity, but it wasn't needed, I didn't ask for it, and you did not answer the initial question I asked either.

[@EnesNurkasa]

I'm afraid that you will never find the answer because it doesn't exist. The idea of quantum computers is hoax. That's why none of today's quantum computers work, no matter how many qubits they have. Programmers like you and me are the real victims by wasting our time to try and find the "explanation".

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

No, Enes, that's almost exactly not what it's all about. It's not more, assuming it works out, it's different.

[@TeachUBusiness]

Commenters should watch this again. He does give a reason explanation. Rem that all quantum related subjects are outside of our sensory norms.

[@Atanu]

Lousy non-explanation. The man belabors entirely trivial things, wastes time, and does not spend even one minute explaining what quantum bits are. He just asserts, not explains. Waste of time.

[@jamestheotherone742]

Thats because he doesn't know/understand and it doesn't actually work.

[@briantwrynn3976]

You explained very well why I got nothing out of this.

[@gandavnarrain2855]

I gave this video a thumbs up. However, why not show us how the quantum computer solves selecting the queen card in one shot? Is it that difficult? It would have really made this presentation helpful.

[@christineliang4670]

In one shot, your quantum computer have all solutions, store them in a quantum state, what you need is just to pick the output that is classical.

[@grenvthompson]

@@christineliang4670 How? It's not good enough to say "your computer has all the solutions" without explaining *how* the computer has all the solutions. That is the point many people are making.

[@En_theo]

@@grenvthompson I agree that it was poorly explained on that part. Classical computers can only have 2 states : zero or one. This is because we represent numbers with an electron (1) or no electrons (0) . It's the only way we found to manipulate numbers fast enough to be usable in a practical way. In quantum computers, we don't associate numbers with the presence or absence of an electron. We associate a whole bunch of numbers at once, associated wit the state of an atom for example. And since an atom can have multiple states at once, we can treat these numbers in one shot. So let's say that an atom can 256 possible states (it's an example). Each atom can now have a value between 0 and 256 and not just 0 and 1. So the calculation is much faster that way. I don't know if I have been clear, I hope it helped you.

[@photografr7]

Say you asked me how old you are. A classic computer would say 20? No. 21? No. 22? No, etc. A quantum computer might say, You are over 18, under 24, an even number, divisible by 11, all in one shot, and therefore 22.

[@gandavnarrain2855]

Thanks for replying. Still leaves me puzzled though. How would it know that I'm over 18, under 24, divisible by 11? Better if you could stick to the actual question about selecting the queen card in one shot claimed in the video presentation.@@photografr7

[@MajidFouladpour]

Correct title: Quantum computing not explained

[@Michael-vd4qg]

Well it is a 15 minute KZbin video. There is no way around getting a textbook or finding a lecture online. You have to do the math yourself.

[@MrTitaniumDioxide]

+Michael Bernreiter Get real...Gil could have at least _tried_ to explain why the 'magical' state of being both a zero and one simultaneously was so advantageous in calculations, other than vaguely referencing 'exponential'...it was a 'gee-whiz' presentation -- 'look at the the wonders of science, IBM does it again' -- in short, a waste of time, clickbait...

[@ahmetmutlu1983]

he says us that quantum computers can solve complex works faster then normal computers but doesnt show actual details about how it will be done.

[@houthakker6717]

so it wasnt just me, ahmet yeah ikr, he explains how a clasical computer would do it, then says, a quantum computer could do it this much faster, this is how a quantum computer looks like " we have to keep it cold, (((blablablabl, at 13:30 he gives away a tiny bit by showing the circuits but he brushes over it in 40 seconds. hes selling it, not explaining it, it draws in dumb inverters.

[@MrTitaniumDioxide]

Christobanistan OK, but perhaps a better title might have been: 'Quantum Computing Revolution', not 'Explained'

[@tomonetruth]

I can explain quantum computing in one sentence: "quantum computers will be able to solve some problems really quickly". Now you know how they work, you're welcome.

[@michaeltanner1351]

I wish I had read the comments first. That was no explanation. :-(

[@redburtley6021]

Thank you to everyone who said that watching this video was not worth my time. I didn't waste a second on it. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

[@JackLee7223]

So, you take a deck of cards. And then wow. Very well explained.

[@laminno69]

The cards were the simplest way to put it. A classic computer will try 1 solution at the time , a quantum computer will try all the combinations at once because of the super position that enables q. Computers to perform that which ls being 1or 0 or both at the same time. apply that on a much bigger scale of data, and you will understand what can take a classic computer 1000 years to solve a problem. A quantum computer is able to do it in seconds or minutes and the supremacy of quantum over classic computers it's has been already proven .

[@obumjohnokafor6899]

Now I am able to understand quantum computing better. I didn't quite understand it since my two years of knowing about it. Thanks man.

[@chavdarnaidenov2661]

I expected him to describe how a quantum computer would resolve the card problem in just one cycle, when he jumped to another subject. And why is he talking about exponents of 2 if qubits have 3 states?

[@chavdarnaidenov2661]

I already knew it is not easy to explain. But why was he trying, if he can't do it?

[@elisabettazanella7691]

this is the only thing I understood: he talks about 2 because in a qbit , instead of being on / off, 0/1 the switch can be simultaneously in the 'superposition' of the two states, that is both on&off, 0&1; but I learned that from elsewhere not from this bad lecture here

[@jayjagtap7873]

This is the most fluent video I have seen on quantum computing... Amazing

[@nickaquino2307]

Correction - Quantum computing "described", not explained.

[@Starlite4321]

This is a description, not an explanation. There's a difference. A BIG difference.

[@garthmountain4097]

click bait - he does not explain quantum computing

[@jason-eu5vg]

At precisely 6:28 you can see a glimpse of the slide where he was going to explain how a quantum computer would solve the card problem, but for some reason he decides to just skip over that slide entirely. Really let down as well.

[@Freakazoid12345]

Have you never seen how people use the word "quantum" before? Is it anything except this type of thing?

[@-danR]

And his prefatory remarks and quote demonstrate he doesn't even know what _science_ is. Quantum computing is a potential, based on very old knowledge about quantum phenomena. The realization of that potential is/would-be... _engineering._

[@Freakazoid12345]

@@-danR so Quantum physics is used in engineering?

[@WaterMan-ss6eb]

Can anyone explain it? No not at this point

[@ceceropanini6644]

Kudos to scientists, architects and engineers!! So beautiful. We know the hurdles to overcome… we heard about the case studies how success achieved by the excellence of the team. Obviously, there were hindrance of the junior architect like Santanu Sinha, and a bit dodgy stuff by Aniruddha Dasgupta, but it was the amazing team work that has overcome all the difficulties! Hats off!!

[@RobWorsnop]

Correct title: Classical computing explained with a deck of cards.

[@anywallsocket]

What? The cards exemplified Grover’s Algorithm which can search a string for a key in root n rather than n (with high probability).

[@leonobles228]

There's no explanation here, on any level. Totally misleading title.

[@salamjihad3449]

WHY ? BECAUSE ANGULAR MOTION CO EXIST WITH COMBUSTIBLE EQUILIBRIUM ? I THINK NOT ! TO DECOMPOSE RITUALISTIC MALNUTRITION DOESNT JUSTIFY POSTMORTEM STATISTICS !!

[@threecolonist]

It requires scientific knowledge to understand this.

[@qjo]

Thank you so very, VERY MUCH! My insomnia is cured.

[@dadaimiza]

QJo 👍

[@dimbulb23]

50+ years ago, equipped my high school diploma and a barely adequate understanding of electronic, IBM hired me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . When they first explained those computers to me I didn't get it. Eventually I got it. Now at age 75, armed with a half-baked familiarity with quantum mechanics, IBM to the rescue and again my light-of-understanding is starting to flicker. I'll keep trying. Thank you.

[@johngreen1776]

Fascinating, I would bet against not being able to put them on a phone. I have lived long enough to see people invent many “impossible” inventions!

[@josephlow1102]

Brilliant, interesting presentation and explanation for common people - thanks

[@TylerMarshall0007]

a quantum bit can solve the maze problem by going in all directions at once, but the thing is, the qubit still was ran like 1000 times and 75 percent of the time it returned a 1, and 25 percent of the time it returned a 0, taking the average we know it's the third card. if we knew for certainty where the qubit was the first try without relying on probability then this would make sense. i came here wanting to learn how classical probability vs quantum probability worked and hoped that it would be explained in here. i know flipping a coin we can statistically know each time you flip it, it will always 50 percent of the time be heads or tails. just because you got heads 5 times in a row, doesn't mean you are due for tails. i was wondering if in quantum, the previous attempts affected future attempts.

[@Astraeus..]

Yea I'm with you, his explanation was just nonsense. At best he's suggesting that the quantum processor being able to run many states concurrently is the same as it returning the right answer on the first try 100% of the time. Even with your coin flip, theoretically it IS possible to flip heads (or tails) over and over, and the more flips done overall the more that chance increases. A machine that flipped a coin repeatedly 24/7 for 10 years would produce, I think, some seriously huge streaks with the same result. But as you said it really doesn't matter, you could flip heads 50000 times in a row, and the next flip STILL has 50/50 probability. It's idiots like this guy who sell people on how marvelous "The Cloud" is, all the while completely failing to mention that "The Cloud" is an actual physical set of hardware and storage, and there's nothing magic about the damn thing because realistically all it's doing is outsourcing storage and computing power from interconnected systems elsewhere.

[@edwintripp1034]

@@Astraeus.. Regarding "The Cloud"(tm), we called it "time sharing" when I was buying time on the Triangle Universities Comp Center Model 40 over 50 years ago.

[@CybershamanX]

Particle Fever brings tears to my eyes when I watch it. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED! 😎

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

Psi, the wavefunfunction, is understood as matter actually turning into space, and according to CIG Theory. Thus, Superposition is readily understood. So, Quantum Qubits are understood as new space, 0's and 1's. An introduction to CIG Theory can be found by clicking the link above. Thank you for this video. "Let's Go Quantum" !

[@sbprime2483]

but how did the electron get through the wall?

[@saskiavanhoutert3190]

The most important of quantum computing is that it not also has to deal with computertechnology but also can deal perhaps with medical issues, thanks for the explanation and kind regards.

[@XPhileProf]

I agree with many of the comments below. In addition to not explaining quantum computing in a way that would make sense to anybody who doesn't already understand it, the speaker makes at least two major technical errors (I stopped paying attention at that point and started writing this). As such, not only is he not helping, but he's actually doing harm.Specifically, he mentions that there are problems that computers will never be able to solve, and then "explains" that by alluding to the existence of intractable problems. In so doing, he neglects the existence of truly unsolvable problems (e.g. the halting problem). Furthermore, he seems to not know that the factoring problem has not been shown to be NP-complete. We don't know a polynomial time algorithm to solve it, but even if we find one, it doesn't give us a polynomial time algorithm for any NP-complete problems.

[@AmbientMorality]

I think I'd be more surprised if integer factorization was NP-complete than if it was in BPP.

[@neiljohnson7914]

I don't think the fact he didn't mention Godel unprovable theorems in any way detracts from what he said about problems that are intractable by a computer because they would take too long. Have you not understood that there are problems a classical computer cannot solve given even billions of years that are nevertheless NOT Godel unprovable?

[@dwhitaker86]

So I don't know a lot about Quantum computers. Never really dug into them. I do have a bachelors in math with a CS minor, so while I probably can't understand all of it, I understand enough that his explanation made no sense to me whatsoever... He essentially makes it sound like adding a 3rd state suddenly takes away the exponential problem (Probably because he makes the mistake of saying it's BOTH a 1 and zero at the same time...) I understand enough however that the explanation given in "The Talk" by Scott Aaronson and Scott Weinersmith made much more sense to me. And made me feel much better about not being able to follow this guy's logical leap from 3 states to instantaneous solutions.

[@cresta141]

I don't understand very much, but it's fascinating to learn that people work on that and they understand it! Good for our future.

[@juliusfucik4011]

It's questionable if the guy understands it otherwise he would have no trouble being better at explaining it.

[@nigelbrookes8534]

A deck of cards mentioned while the importance of Quantum computing is discussed

[@Freakazoid12345]

?

[@Freakazoid12345]

@@VoxVictus I see.

[@christylevin2801]

IBM research is amazing, the research world helps us a lot 🌍

[@fffffffffffffffffark]

The only thing they invented that is still used is SQL. Everything else has been superseded

[@KevinSterns]

5:50 - It does NOT take a classic computer 2.5 clock cycles to find which bit is 1 out of 4 bits. It takes ONE instruction cycle. It's called bit-wise logic, it's been around forever, and it does a simultaneous compare against all bits in the word.

[@AmbientMorality]

and also, while you can always solve this problem in one shot with a quantum computer, a larger input (more cards) would mean more iterations. It's still a speed-up, but it does scale with input size

[@timmiltz2916]

I DO so loves me some bitwise logic.

[@damysticalone87]

Those steal many of my ideas (=inventions) initiated by me: + open, transparent 360° sunlight Buildings, construction methods, architectures, designs, concepts; + Step-floor / -storey / -level / -tier pyramid (e.g., as a residential building); + 360° stepped floors / storey / level / tier buildings (constructions, architectures, construction methods, designs, concepts, 2D, 3D, models); + 3D 360° environment (surround), volume, space (room) audio / sound; + 360° environment (surround), volume, room screens (displays), monitors, TVs; + Screens (displays), monitors, TVs without backlighting; + many things with magnets like Micro-OLED; + 360° screens, monitors, TVs, panels, glass; + curved screens, monitors, TVs, panels, glass; + dark backgrounds / themes / skins for windows, browser windows, internet sites, programs / apps, etc.; + and much more! + I'm not the inventor of VR, but of "AR", AR glass, AR glasses, objective in real life! + 360° reflections and light digital: "ENB", "Ray-Tracing" / "RTX", “Lumen illumination” and whatever renaming! It was only later that I realized that they derived a lot from my ideas (=inventions), a lot came about that has to do with color and light, through me as an initiator, booster / catalyst, e.g., through my idea, invention of the Screens without a backlight and without a built-in / integrated backlight! It is no coincidence that only afterwards, after I initiated this, they built, built and are building those inventions thanks to my impetus! They sell my ideas (inventions) as theirs! They are not the inventors, but the first technical implementers of my ideas (=inventions)! And those are not the inventors, but the thieves of my ideas (=inventions) initiated by me, because those act as if I wasn't the first hand and the first domino, and they take unjustly, undeservedly a lot of money, stolen money (blood money), recognitions, awards, certificates, fame and history, they boast of my laurels / merits! Before me they all were stucked at LCD, Plasma TV and less lights! I have made a deep impact in evolution! Those manipulate, sabotage, falsify, distort images, paintings, digitized and real, animations, videos, films, also composed of many images, even the publication dates of mine, others and their posts, images, videos, etc.! You have to understand, those can distort everything that can be heard and seen in real life and digitally! They block and delete my pictures, videos, posts, comments, comments-answers and answers! They are poisoning and murdering the world with fake diseases, treatments, "vaccinations"/ "vaccines" and injections by syringe! Now they also make it out as if they haven't been ripping off, cheating, enslaving, murdering other countries with the money currency, money exchange by even -99% for more than two centuries! And as if I'm not the first to disclose that and more! As if I didn't disclose and initiate > 1.00 Ruble = 1.00 Euro (€) = 1.00 Dollar ($) = any (X) any country < years ago! Each and every non-civilian you hear and see on TV is involved! You can hear and see their > blue blue blue

[@jellovendigar]

For people lamenting the lack of explanation here, I recommend minutephysics’ awesome video on this topic. He actually walks through the math involved (to a degree)

[@Freakazoid12345]

There's a lack of explanation because quantum computing is a total scam. People know that throwing in a buzzword like, "quantum" gets clicks.

[@Marcus_Caius]

@@Freakazoid12345 I believe 100% in science but when "scientist" loose all respect they may deserve is when they try to rebrand words. The *quantum* word originate from Latin and mean quantity or amount. Like you said a click bait.

[@Freakazoid12345]

@@Marcus_Caius THANK YOU!

[@acypher3096]

@@Freakazoid12345 Yes! And it's now fashionable to use the word "round" to describe the earth

[@rgarlinyc]

@@acypher3096 🤣🤣Perfect retort. We'd need a quantum computer to decode the troglodyte mind.

[@pauliusnarkevicius9959]

Does Parallel Threads could be the same in Classical Computer? 6:20 and more cores, more cores..

[@pauliusnarkevicius9959]

Does with Current (year) Quantum Computers still are possible to solve prime numbers on not more than two digit numbers?

[@pauliusnarkevicius9959]

13:13 what could be the electricity cost for using it for one hour?

[@MrPeterrod]

this youtube wasn't a total waste of time - I found out about the IBM Q Experience and signed up :-)

[@israeloliveira2083]

He doesnt give me anything new that I didnt know, but I must say I feel really happy because I can understand and explain using another different examples that I already had in my mind before to see this video. And before this video, I ve been doubt if I really had understand the basics comcepts, and now after this video for sure I know that I ve been understanded the basics comcepts about computer that use quantun phisics. And so I have to say thank you.

[@arthurlewis9193]

I think I get it. The minute you observe this video your understanding immediately becomes not understanding.

[@aliuyar6365]

Thank you IBM for pionnering into the Quantum computing

[@nmaync]

Pity the card analogy stopped halfway. Would have liked to hear, in easy terms, how the Q computer proceeds to the solution. That defeated the great card analogy.

[@TcheQ]

Came in to find how he explained quantum compuing using a deck of cards, and found there was no explanation it was just an unjustified assertion.

[@Phil8sheo]

I can not fault the speaker, it was a decent introductory talk on quantum computing, but that damn title is straight up click-bait.

[@kellymcguire1385]

At 11:18, when he says we still can't calculate the bond length of calcium monofluoride (CaF), and that we are off by of factor of 2 did not sound right. So, since I am a computational biophysicist trained in quantum chemistry computations, I decided to check that claim. I ran a geometry optimization on CaF using the B3LYP method and the 6-311++g(2d,2p) basis set with a lanl2dz basis set on the fluoride atom. The calculation on our supercomputer took less than 30 seconds and the bond length I get is 1.946 angstroms, which compared to experimental (1.967 angstroms), is more than acceptable in terms of error. I have no idea what he means by not being able, "still", to calculate the bond length of a simple diatomic molecule like this. I didn't even use the most accurate method and basis sets either. I used a moderate approach. If I used a different basis set and better method, I could get less than 1% error. He needs to show the error in the experimental value. The experimental value is not exact either. Bonds vibrate, and therefore we only capture the thermodynamic average of the bond length in experiments. They are not static at one length only. These types of calculations can be done extremely fast already on classical computers. Not a good example of how quantum computing would help. Quantum computers will be very useful when we want to simulate an entire biological molecule, such as an enzyme, with a full quantum mechanics treatment. Maybe he left out some detail in his presentation...

[@veselinvalev7649]

How the computer would guess the queen's position with one attempt remains a mystery... I am skeptical, because it is always probabilities in the end and the possible states of the cards are always true or false. I am very interested to see how the quantum computer would overcome that, but unfortunately it wans't explained in the video.

[@augastaroma533]

No one can explain what quantum computing is, you have to see it for yourself - Morpheus

[@macrefinerymartinez1430]

For those seeking an answer: Quantum computing can evaluate all the states of the cards simultaneously instead of the classical one by one.

[@keep_walking_on_grass]

is that a physical (hardware) operation or software computing?

[@ellenripley4837]

So of I get this right it means that it will look at the whole hand of cards at once instead of one by one?

[@chrisengland5523]

Yes, we all get that, but HOW? Sorry, I don't wish to be rude, but that's the standard answer and it's about as useful as saying a classical computer uses electronics.

[@Daniel-Strain]

He gets right up to the point of almost addressing the title (explaining quantum computing) about the 6:15 mark when he notes that it could find the queen in 1 step. Then at 6:27 you see him skip past a slide with graphics on it and also skip the explanation as to WHY it can do it in one step. That one slide he skipped past would have been all we needed to see to give the answer the title of this video claims it gives.

[@bbthing68]

I discovered he was from IBM, and my expectations dropped. He mentioned 1000 people working for him, and I imagined that it took them 3.5 years to type his notes for this presentation. But he only gave them 2 months so this is the result.

[@WaterMan-ss6eb]

I think this gives insight to the navy’s video on ufo from the Nimitz. This ufo actually went from air to underwater with no disturbance in the water. So unlike what we know when we move thru space we move things out of the way like air molecules etc. for instance a boat will can cause a wave.but this ufo seems to move thru space by interacting with the air / water molecules. Almost like it is a paired electron and can change instantly like its pared partner. It doesn't displace the water molecule it is thru the particle .

[@MoreGore]

I thought Peter Sellers died, he must have just switched to QC, good for him!

[@k.chriscaldwell4141]

_”The thing that differinciates scientists is purely an artistic ability to discern what is a lucrative grant idea, what is a beautiful lucrative grant idea, what grant is worth spending time on, and most importantly, what is a problem that is sufficiently profitable, yet sufficiently difficult, that it hasn’t yet been deem non grant-worthy.”_

[@njabs8960]

Been trying to get my mind over this for over a year and this is the first talk that made it really clear! Thank you.

[@SoupyOatmeal]

After listening to at least 20 talks over the last 5 years for the very first time I actually understand the concept of quantum computing and why it is necessary to persuit the science. Thank you for the enlightenment.

[@t.chrissmith5360]

I have read and watched more than 2 dozen explanations of this topic. I now know more than I ever had and the concept is still challenging. But I love the fact that you address all the complaints here. This subject is so difficult and so dense, you have to look beyond your impulse to want an instant simple answer. The pursuit of the answer is the answer itself. It takes time, thought, and most of all curiosity.

[@DennyLobach]

Dang! How could I not have thought of this. 😂 The pulses go in... Then you take it out.

[@keep_walking_on_grass]

someone once explained it that way: old computers check all answers one by one whether they are right or wrong. the bits can be 1 or zero. quantum computers look at many answers at the same time ( because all the bits which do the calculation can be 1 and 0 at the same time ) the right answers are checked by wave form.

[@brendawilliams8062]

They get better at pinging the inside of the tin can.

[@epkt]

A better title would be: “the potential of quantum computing (so give us more funding)”. That would have saved many people’s time...

[@BananthahallyVijay]

Wow! Brilliant intro to the next thing in life.

[@palpytine]

We really looking forward here to a deck of cards being used as an analogy for how quantum computing works. Clickbait title, downvoted

[@thevonmunchies9213]

11:25 - If the computer can't calculate the bond length how did they get the answer in the first place?

[@IIVVBlues]

When mainframe computers were just hitting their stride in the general business market in the early 70s, a rule of thumb among the IBM sales force was, "B___ S___ baffles brains". When you can't explain how it works, keep talking and pretend you can. It looks like some things never change.

[@patvarner8019]

When you cant dazzle them with brilliance. Baffle them with bull shit. is a good one also.

[@jtc1947]

I am loving this presentation!

[@thierrypauwels]

I am disappointed. He told that the card problem requires only 1 interrogation, but he did not explain how it worked.

[@bitsabhi]

It requires one qubit because 1 qubit can hold 2^1 states = 2 which are Queen and the other card. Its sort of self explanatory

[@frankfahrenheit9537]

He didn't because it does not work

[@skylake3505]

I eagerly awaited till the end for the quantum solution to the deck of cards :(

[@stevecatto6743]

So in one operation a quantum computer with 'n' qbits can solve a problem that involves 2^n possiblities. Okay. How does it do that? I'm still waiting for the explanation...

[@briantwrynn3976]

The blurb did ask "How does the technology work" but does not answer it.

[@ismaeelmahmood7259]

From what' i understand from reading (very lightly) about it is that classical bits exists in one of two states; a 0 or a 1 however a qbit can exist as a combination of both until it is observed. This means that a fewer set of qbits can carry the same amount of information as a much larger set of classical bits. It's not quite that quantum computers can calculate faster than a classical one, rather it has to do exponentially less calculations to reach the same answer. That's my understanding but you may want to look it up just in case i'm wrong (which is pretty likely xd).

[@Christos_Angelis]

At 3:20: They found the answer to be "NO". Landauer's principle asserts that there is a minimum possible amount of energy required to erase one bit of information: kT ln 2. What did i get wrong?

[@VfletchS]

Explains nothing about how quantum computers work.

[@jameshintze3180]

It would be interesting to see the instruction set to understand how one would write a program

[@frankfahrenheit9537]

There are reasons why they never explain how to program such a machine. It's fucking complicated. Everybody can understand how to program a classical computer within minutes: sum=0 for i=1 to 100 sum=sum+i Guess you know what this is. And how is this done on a quantum computer?

[@mikebozik]

I've watched a few videos on quantum computing. It is very interesting. But, no one has really communicated it in a way that I can grasp. Certainly, some amount of knowledge in advanced science would be required to fully understand it, but should that be an obstacle to explaining it to us everyday people? I saw a video of Carl Sagan breaking down a tesseract with a plexiglass square and some shadows. E = mc2. I feel like whoever eventually explains it, will actually understand it.

[@davep8221]

You can find the Queen classically and of O(1): Lookup table: 0000 -- "invalid" 0001 -- Queen in slot 0. 0010 -- "" 1 0100 -- "" 2 1000 -- "" 3. Everything else --> invalid.

[@tinacofactory]

I can explain quite straightforward what quantum computing is: my wife when does the monthly bills is at the same time happy and angry.

[@chyousub]

Best real life explamation for a superstate i have heard so far :)

[@juliocalderon2992]

Love this presentation!

[@JackSarfatti]

I think I know how to make quantum computers operate at room temperature using the Frohlich macro--quantum coherence phase transition in resonantly pumped dissipative structures far off thermodynamic equilibrium.

[@NotThatLittleJohnny]

You didn't explain the 3rd state-0+1 and it's associated value. The quantum computing I expected to be explained deals with instant data transfer of molecule state from linked molecules all done regardless of distance.

[@glashoppah]

The first thing they should do with such a device is use it to find a material that superconducts at a more reasonable temperature.

[@patrickleus5585]

Absolutely right ! The fundamentals of the quantum computing are completely missing which reduces the video to the level of an IBM sales presentation

[@TexMex421]

Explained NOTHING! Seriously this was just goofy.

[@empireStyle]

I understand finally but took me 2 weeks of research. Qcomputer can pick out the right card because all states are entangled whereas in classical computers you have to check (compute) each state.

[@dennyhayes1818]

I think I finally understand it. It appears to be something like using a slide rule, where the device can’t do the complete problem so it only focuses on the few characters that are important. To solve many problems that require almost unlimited calculations would require so many bits that it can’t be accurately calculated with zeros and ones. But by using a quantum method only a few bits are needed, to give the answer without carrying it out to a bzillion places.

[@_.-._.-._.-_.-._.-._.-_.-._.-]

______ัััััััััััััุุุััััุุุััััั ุัััััััััััััััััั 🤍 ҉่•-, _________________ 💛ُُٰٖٓ⁠ لا إله إلا الله❤️ ,َ ________ ่ัํ่่ัํ่่่ัํ่่่่ัํ ่ัํ่่ัํ่่่ัํ่่่่ัํ ่ัํ่่ัํ่่่ัํ่่่่ัํ ่ัํ่่ัํ่่่ัํ่่่่ัํ ่ัํ่่ัํ่่่ัํ่่่่ัํ ่ัํ่่ัํ่่่ัํ่่่่ัํ ่ัํ่่ัํ่่่ัํ่่่่ัํ ่ัํ่่ัํ่่่ัํ่่่่ัํ ่ัํ่่ัํ่่่ัํ่่่่ัํ ่ัํ่่ัํ่่่ัํ่่่่ัํ ่ัํ่่ัํ่่่ัํ่่่่ัํ ่ัํ่่ัํ่่่ัํ่่่่ัํ ่ัํ่่ัํ่่่ัํ่่่่ัํ ่ัํ่่ัํ่่่ัํ่่่่ัํ_____•่ ___

[@GeekTranslation]

Not only did he not explain it... He explained an idea I had back when I was 16, some 39 years ago... Basically he said there are 3 answers Yes, No and Maybe... I have come to figure out that there is more than that. Yes, No, Maybe yes, maybe no, and just down the line maybe. It will depend on your resolution of using maybe....

[@sblevine1]

There wasn't any explanation of quantum computing in the video with a deck of cards or any other prop. There were claims, but certainly no explanation of proofs.

[@gurbanliye]

2020 and I am still searching KZbin for real quantum computer demonstration, yet KZbin algorithm gives me this.

[@frankfahrenheit9537]

Me still searching, too, bro.

[@gurbanliye]

@@frankfahrenheit9537 I hope this is not another "Higgs Bosom" thing.

[@geoffreybramhall5964]

Why not at least show us how the quantum computer solves the 4 card problem in only one try. We might not understand how it works or the science behind the solution, but it sure would be interesting to see. Am I showing my ignorance in asking this question?

[@mboiko]

While I agree the title is misleading...I must say, that I did enjoy the 30,000' view of where we are today and why we need to move to a completely different computing paradigm in the future...

[@joanneward2140]

An excellent and informative presentation. Have just read (twice) Philip Ball's "Beyond Weird," and this video dovetails well with what is covered in that excellent book. If this is what IBM is telling us, I just have to wonder how far along they really are and what are the the Chinese , Russians and Indians are doing!

[@anjalijha4052]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jn-cmqhpe9yrjac

[@jorgensenmj]

So for every "quantum" calculation you have to check if it was correct or you have to replicate the calculation enough times that the probability of it being correct is very high. This sound like quasi-quantum computing is as far as you will ever get. After doing some research it seems that all commercially available "quantum" computers are actually "quasi-quantum" and the main point of pursuing "true quantum computing" is to get more funding.

[@martinzitter4551]

A Peter Sellers lookalike. Sign him up for a new Pink Panther movie.

[@derfunkhaus]

Yes!

[@lerinarazafy7826]

a cross of Peter Sellers and Jean Reno. wow that's quantum odds for you. :-)

[@andrewcbuensalida]

What is the calculation for 2.5 average card flips to find the queen?

[@OneFingerYT]

He was wrong about that, actually. It should be 2.25 on average. One out of four times you find it on the first flip. Two of four you find it on the second. The other half of the time you know after the third flip where the Queen is. You don't ever need to flip the fourth card. So 1+2+3+3 / 4 gives you 2.25.

[@rongarza9488]

I could explain it better if I knew it better myself. Maybe that's his problem too.

[@bethclemensen2102]

I am neither a physicist nor mathematician, but I'm interested. This gives me a 1st step.