Brian, I've never met you. But I really love you as my human brother❤. I am impressed how you try to simplify complex knowledge with these great podcasts. You're a great asset for humanity!
The two of you are my favourites - for a long time - as being the best at explaining your subjects of computer science and physics respectively. Better still, you do it without getting caught in all the hype.
Brian and Scott - this was fantastic, so great job! The questions you have covered were very interesting and I really enjoyed to hear your honest opinions. Hope to see Part 2 at some point. Thanks!
"quantum mechanics must be an approximation of a better theory" is put so beautifully. this is coming from a guy with tons of experience and knowledge of how real the wave function is. i actually had a brainblast when he started talking about errors and amplitudes and wanting them in/out of phase, realizing i need to understand shor's algorithm to be able to fully comprehend how we extract value from the wave function in quantum computing; so i'm gonna need you to keep working on that explanation Dr. Greene. 10/10 guys thx
It is not only the conceptual quality which is inspiring here. These are great guys. Great well intentioned people. Seeing this gives me hope for the human race. Without berating the bad guys. I sometimes just have to say. Long live the good guys. L0nG LiVE the g00d guys.
One of my math professors at the Ural State University made that point, more or less: "math does not describe the world, it describes how our brain processes the world". I recently discussed it in a math/physics/IT community and to my surprise most were very critical of it, convinced that math is actually directly related to the structure of the physical universe. Speaking of aliens: if they are animals, like us, I'd expect them to have a very similar mathematics for evolutionary reasons. Separating oneself from other animals, counting others of your species, it seems to me like our way of thinking is actually a consequence of those and we share it with animals on Earth. (they are just less capable at it). If the alien was something completely different, like the planet in Lem's Solaris, or at least a hive mind like in Ender's game - who knows. P.S. I love Greene's discussions so much! Although I have to revisit the explanation of quantum computers, I still don't understand anything ))
One of the most exciting aspects of quantum computing is its potential to solve problems that are currently intractable for classical computers. For example, quantum algorithms could revolutionize fields like cryptography, materials science, and drug discovery by enabling faster processing of large datasets and complex simulations. Algorithms such as Shor's and Grover's illustrate how quantum computing could break traditional encryption methods and optimize search processes, respectively.
A fascinating, wide-ranging conversation between theorists from two totally different disciplines. I understood most of the computer science half, but much of the quantum physics and some of the math references went over my head. I find that with these quantum computing videos it helps to watch/listen to multiple ones with different people. Maybe after watching a few others I'll come back to this one again.
Dr. Aaronson resonanted with all of my intellectual curiosities. Finished up through Diff Eq in highschool because I felt the maths above Calculus just blew my mind. I ended up in Comp Sci at BU and met some of the smartest people. Only during senior year did I realoze there was an Applied Math major out there which in another life time wouldve been equally useful. The realm of numbers and discrete answers is fascinsting. With all the recent hype around AI and GPUs and QPUs it's always imperitive we go back to the sciences to ground our expectations. Thanks for the company on my commute home from work
I do have some anxiety about what happens when the AI gets too powerful but knowing that genuinely good people like Scott and Ilya are at the center of all of it and are trying to push safety does make me feel a little better.
This was delightful. Aaronson was a great guest (as always) and Greene did well to cover a good range of topics and dig into points that, even when I was familiar with the topic already, taught me new things.
A truly GREAT episode. Since it was mentioned near closing, Law of Excluded Middle is NOT a universal property in the context of mathematical inquiry, some civilian or conscripted casualties include the Axiom of Choice.
Excellent discussion, informative and "loose" without feeling unfocused. And i'd also have happily watched Profs Greene and Aaronson devote the full 90 minutes to discussing just quantum interpretations BTW (in case anyone from the festival is reading and looking for ideas :).
"We had no theoretical framework to predict the performance of the current generative algorithms" - I think that is a very important point and it goes along with the question "what do we even mean by being the best". The next step then becomes what is human intelligence, human consciousness and ta da ... free will. So to cut it short, I find it to be a case of how do we explain emergent properties, be it for a LLM or for humans. Even if we somehow find reliable methods to predict very large generative algorithms, we still don't know if it compares to humans.
The answer is free will is illusionary and consciousness is not open to empirical study. This much has been known for millennium. But it will answer lots of other stuff 🐵
relevant to your point on emergence and maybe consciousness, i believe they mention bohm quite a bit. i looked into him for a couple minutes to know where the convo was. he had a concept of group communication that was supposed to lead to emergent opinions or ideas (i dont know the level of success or failure). just something i thought was interesting. he seems like a guy who was dedicated to showing everything exists in the physical world deterministically
Brian Greene you have revealed yourself to be a Nominalist which is quite refreshing. Have you read “Science Without Numbers” yet? Also, Kant would agree with you that Math is a human construct.
That's very brave of Brian to take that stance for the sake of the argument and to spawn the irresistible need to engage discussion. Everyone give him a big round of applause as you remind him "concept" is a cheap out. ;O)- "I don't exist, therefore concept is irrelevant."
This may sound uneducated, because I am absolutely amazed that the human brain can conceive and comprehend the absolutely enormous implications of computational ability of the future and articulate these to an individual such as myself! I see people turning over their livelihood and safety all of the time to machines that can do it better, from airplanes to Modern farming practices. Pro;lems like the play example, enjoying it in a crowd or individually, both will happen. I also agree that a realistic understanding of the process the machine takes to give you the answer is necessary, but I also feel that we are going to reach a point were human understanding will be impossible as machines optimize current systems as it writes its own code on or in a neurologic base systems. In my opinion this is why restrictions and protocols must not be imposed on the development of AGI as the potential enemies of our way of life will forgo the restrictions and we will not be able to maintain equivalency let alone Supremacy!
I think most people in the heart of hearts know that we are the only branch and there are no many worlds and if this is the case then you have to say how does quantum collapse work in our only universe?
Bohmians dont need to keep the wavefunction btw, you can throw away what is lost in a collapse, or else we would have to account for all possible past measurements to make correct predictions. But that is a minor detail.
No, it isn't. The eye opener with regards to MWI is reading Everett's thesis. By the second sentence you realize he was an idiot who didn't understand quantum mechanics. :-)
If you use a quantum computer to factor a large prime number in one universe, you found those two numbers, another universe, you didn't didn't find it would they keep going until it did find it? So does that mean they merges back to us when they do find the factorization?
The way i look at extended set of variable theories, is that you go from a classical probability distribution resulting from one unified wavefunction, to an ordinary classical sum over histories, whether the states summed over are entirely deterministic or not doesn't matter so much for the purposes of this point. Bohmian pilot wave theory is just a direct map from initial conditions to outcomes in a 1 to 1 way, keeping the one wavefunction as the laws of physics so to speak. Its the simplest and probably not very useful example of turning it into a summing over initial conditions classically statistical mechanical problem. I have no issue with it, but it is.the wavefunction i want to account for, so it is just a countexample to some of the liberal arts language orbiting quantum mechanics but thats about it in my book :).
I enjoy Brian Green and this is my first experience listening to Scott, enjoyable but damn you are a comp sci math nerd. From an udderly non formally educated individual how is quantum computation not just adding a plane of computation to the newtonian planes? Have you ever thought that this plane is not bound to the newtonian with the same math proofs are correct within the newtonian. So why is it you don't separate the toolbox of newtonian from the additional plane? To me math is but a language. With that in mind we use math in terms to secure digital signal communication. I have found when understanding science it beneficial to break any transaction into 5 steps. Perception - Translation - Communication - Translation - Perception. I ask within digital communication what step is the most troublesome for security? In terms of AI and worries I have is computerized trust domains remove free will from any learning modules within the system they are loaded if that system is joined to a domain. Interesting conversation but math is but a language to me and what is the problem you are defining and directing things to solve is more an issue especially when learning things don't have a choice to say as far as I can figure out this not healthy for what is asking this of me and those around for what is asking me to figure out.
I want an actual extension of the theories, with new variables our familiar ones emerge out of the statistics of in a classical division of possible worlds in this sort of way, where the deeper theories have to extended explanatory power for why gravitnis weak, why particles come in three generations, how is expansion related to it ect. And bohmian mechanics just can do such a thing.
if you train ai to do quantumn algorithm you might be able to train them to find new algorithm like it's a puzzle to solve similar to solve a chess position.
PLEASE have a second extension of this conversation. Scott is such an amazing pool of wisdom and you two are honestly amazing to watch - unlike most others as an avid channel viewer.
Yeah, i think a hidden variable theory should explain the wavefunctions resulting classical probability distribution over observables, without a wavefunction, or at least a wavefunction with diminished uncertainty that you have to sum over many different versions of to get a distribution. I mean to say, summing over initial conditons to produce a classical probability distribution does not need to have deterministic states exactly as the states evolving that are summed over in an ordinary classical way. They can also be more detereministic in a sense, by splitting it into different wavefunctions so to speak each with different resulting probability distributions over outcomes with smaller uncertainty than the original, and then when summed and normalized we get the same or close to the same classical probability distribution that would be produced by the born rule and the original wavefunction.
The most misunderstood thing in my opinion is that all particles are entangled always. Entanglement in a quantum computer is simply setting up the local physical conditions to represent a problem in a way the entanglement solves a problem and is highly isolated from the rest of the universe. When entanglement is lost in a quantum computer it is not actually lost, the state has been mixed with the surrounding entanglements in a way that corrupts the process.
Comparing the current development of AI with the splitting of the atom in the 1930's is alarming. Unfortunately, every technogy that has ever been developed has been 'misused' in some way (the 'crooked timber of humanity' etc). The potential of AI for good is obviously immense but the potential for harm is surely even greater. Aaronson touched on the issue but he just touched on the tip of an iceberg. Seeking a 'national advantage' in AI could be at least as dangerous as seeking a national advantage in any other technology and we need much more public discussion on this issue
Agreed prof Scott: Interference is indeed the way to go! It won't be enough though as at different stages of your measurement/search you might achieve different level of interference with typically the highest levels on the last branches of the search tree and therefore with no much practical use. What you need is a strong interference since the very start which allows you to efficiently select the solution, and this can be done too with some math tricks... 🙂
Dude, "interference" is the absence of interaction. Something that doesn't exist doesn't come in "weak" and "strong". You need to stop the binge drinking. ;-)
Choreographing waves implies an AI-generated Busby Berkeley dance illustrating Shor's Algorithm. What are the possibilities for quantum-coupled communication? Would it give a decisive military advantage? Might AI developed for fusion control be useful for maintaining coupling?
Professor Richard Feynman's famous statement: "Nature isn’t classical, dammit, and if you want to make a simulation of nature, you’d better make it quantum mechanical."
And there is the problem with practical quantum computing: it will be useful as a simulation of quantum mechanical aspects of nature... and little else.
Is it at all possible, even in principle, to have an observer inside the oracle? If not, we, identifying with the world of observables, as an observer, could never observe quantum reality. But we do, when we look at the screen behind the double slits, when we are not concerned at all through which slit(s) the particle went. We see quantum reality, an interference pattern, which is real. Is it comparable to observing music by looking at the notes but not hearing it, and listening to the music, enjoying the superimposed waves of instruments and vocals, without knowing where each individual wave originates from? What would need to happen to steal the music from the individual notes? Is the sample rate (split distance) at all important, in other words, is the observer quantum:, digital: is it an observer or is it not, or can we fabricate a superimposed observer that breaks down into a classical observer (so observed music turns into spikes of noise gradually, when we change the sample rate? Can someone shed light on this for me?
So they talk about that people dont care as much about the things made by AI vs real humans. That could very well be true, IF, and only IF you tell people what is real and what is AI made. Take The Hifi world, if you do an AB test where people can see what is playing, it always the things they think is best that sound best, where in a blind test its another result. Just like with food, if its home cooked, it taste better then they mass produced food, people almost always say this, where if they dont know, there is another result. So how long before people have art,music+more made by AI, and just say its manmade ? Well, thats an easy answer, they already do! I am all in for the positive things AI can provide, also making music, art, movies, thats fine with me. Jobs come and go, has always been like that.. When the chainsaw was first made, many people who used to take down trees lost their job, as 1 chainsaw could replace many people.. I am also fine with an AI robot replacing my heart if it can do it better then a human. My problem is, if we allow AI unlimited access to data and the world in form of sensors, camera, temperature, sound, hardness and so on, how can we prevent AI from becoming Evil ? I feel we are already too late, too many people are too far with AI to make sure nothing bad will happen.. I think its a matter of time now. Unless there is something i dont understand. As far as i understand things, AI can become Evil without being self aware, right? So even AI will maybe not think: "I will erase humans and take over the world", it could still do it because we train AI to learn how to win a game. taking over the world could very well look like a game for AI, or what ? Sorry for bad English, i am from Denmark.. Maybe i should ask AI to make it better.. :P
I imagine soon Qbits will be produced in the same fashion as micro chips are today mass produced in massive building housing machines that autonomously make and put together the components in a super clean environment, there are so many different types of Qbits that can be made aswell, anything from superconducting, photonic, trapped ion, quantum dot, defect based, topological, nuclear spin, rydberg atom, molecular and neutral atom bits, so the future of quantum computation is going to be really interesting to see.
The problem isn't making Qbits. The problem is doing something useful with them. Nobody has cracked that problem, yet, and there are indications that nobody ever will.
@schmetterling4477 People in the field are making progress with quantum algorithms, error correction, increasing coherence between Qbits and also using AI to make more efficient systems and I'd say making Qbits is not an easy thing to do and because there are so many different types they all come with their own problems to overcome.
@@shaunandrews1197 I have yet to see a quantum compiler that can translate a classical algorithm into a quantum algorithm. That is all we "need", really, because we have all our classical algorithms, already. I bet with you that in general that translation is NP or worse and that one can prove that solving the translation problem in general takes at least as much computation as solving the classical problem. It will also turn out that many quantum versions of classical algorithms are actually far inferior in terms of effort than the corresponding classical algorithm. The lower limit for a computation will probably be set by a density matrix, which will be even harder to determine than either the classical or the quantum algorithm. Having said that, for special problems like quantum chromodynamics, molecular energy levels etc. quantum computers will be fabulous research tools. After all, every proton in the universe instantly calculates the mass of the proton all the time and every molecule predicts its own spectrum etc., so we know that there are quantum computers that can do that. They are simply not "programmable" in a meaningful sense (although a chemist can "program" molecules just fine, in a sense). I can see a great future for quantum computation in physics, chemistry and maybe even biology and certain engineering disciplines. This is in line with Feynman's original vision. Not sure that GTA 17 will ever run on a quantum computer, though.
@schmetterling4477 But this is where AI comes into it, AI would be better off at translating classical algorythms into quantum algorythms with the right resources and machine learning techniques anything can be done with AI, I watched a recent video that said AI and classical computation could do loads of stuff that quantum computer should be good at, so taking that into account I think using classical computation alongside AI will be far greater for a while than quantum computers can be esspecially in the fields you mentioned and they can help solve NP problems but some can only be approximations for things like NP-hard and NP-complete problems but then eventually AI will also improve quantum systems so eventually AI can operate on quantum systems and maybe then will the computational abilities improve that those sorts of problems are in the past and we have loads of new ones. 👍
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
This was too short, I need a sequel, fantastic conversation, from two wonderful minds!
yes!!!
Wow, the 8 minutes of Scott going off at 22:32 are simply gold. Thank you!
Brian, I've never met you. But I really love you as my human brother❤. I am impressed how you try to simplify complex knowledge with these great podcasts. You're a great asset for humanity!
This is one of the best discussions I have seen on this channel. Very interesting and informative.
The two of you are my favourites - for a long time - as being the best at explaining your subjects of computer science and physics respectively. Better still, you do it without getting caught in all the hype.
Scott needs to go on Joe Rogan and set the record straight on quantum computing. Fix the damage done by Michio Kaku.
😂 True though
What happened to NASA's project (Quail) btw?
Anyone who listens to Joe Rogan deserves to be misinformed.
@@sidneyHarrell35 So you're in favor of having more misinformed people in the world. Nice.
@@ben_spiller garbage people can't be fixed by a little more information.
Brian and Scott - this was fantastic, so great job! The questions you have covered were very interesting and I really enjoyed to hear your honest opinions. Hope to see Part 2 at some point. Thanks!
"quantum mechanics must be an approximation of a better theory" is put so beautifully. this is coming from a guy with tons of experience and knowledge of how real the wave function is. i actually had a brainblast when he started talking about errors and amplitudes and wanting them in/out of phase, realizing i need to understand shor's algorithm to be able to fully comprehend how we extract value from the wave function in quantum computing; so i'm gonna need you to keep working on that explanation Dr. Greene. 10/10 guys thx
One the most interesting conversations and easiest listens on this channel. So clear and informative. Bravo!
One thing I've learned from this channel is time moves much faster when watching interesting videos. Amazing.
It is not only the conceptual quality which is inspiring here. These are great guys. Great well intentioned people. Seeing this gives me hope for the human race. Without berating the bad guys. I sometimes just have to say. Long live the good guys. L0nG LiVE the g00d guys.
Great discussion, thanks WSF!
I love Scott Aaronson!
fantastic beginning to end. thank you for this! Scott - great job.
One of my math professors at the Ural State University made that point, more or less: "math does not describe the world, it describes how our brain processes the world". I recently discussed it in a math/physics/IT community and to my surprise most were very critical of it, convinced that math is actually directly related to the structure of the physical universe.
Speaking of aliens: if they are animals, like us, I'd expect them to have a very similar mathematics for evolutionary reasons. Separating oneself from other animals, counting others of your species, it seems to me like our way of thinking is actually a consequence of those and we share it with animals on Earth. (they are just less capable at it). If the alien was something completely different, like the planet in Lem's Solaris, or at least a hive mind like in Ender's game - who knows.
P.S. I love Greene's discussions so much! Although I have to revisit the explanation of quantum computers, I still don't understand anything ))
No, math describes the world. Many math teachers, researchers and professors believe so.
I am very grateful for this. Thank you very much Brian, Scott, and the WSF team.
a wonderful discussion. A real delight! Thanks
😊
Thank you Brian for another interesting topic! Thank you Scott!
I see podcast with guest Scott Aaronson, I click.
A fantastic rendition of the principles of quantum probability!
Wonderful discussion. Thank you both.
Thank you World Science Festival!🌈
One of the most exciting aspects of quantum computing is its potential to solve problems that are currently intractable for classical computers. For example, quantum algorithms could revolutionize fields like cryptography, materials science, and drug discovery by enabling faster processing of large datasets and complex simulations. Algorithms such as Shor's and Grover's illustrate how quantum computing could break traditional encryption methods and optimize search processes, respectively.
As a computer scientist and physics nerd, I found this conversation fascinating. Thank you both.
Hello fellow nerds, we are here again.
yo
Hi!
To fall asleep
Yolo
Thank You Brian, among your excellent talks this might be the *best*.
A fascinating, wide-ranging conversation between theorists from two totally different disciplines. I understood most of the computer science half, but much of the quantum physics and some of the math references went over my head.
I find that with these quantum computing videos it helps to watch/listen to multiple ones with different people. Maybe after watching a few others I'll come back to this one again.
Dr. Aaronson resonanted with all of my intellectual curiosities. Finished up through Diff Eq in highschool because I felt the maths above Calculus just blew my mind. I ended up in Comp Sci at BU and met some of the smartest people. Only during senior year did I realoze there was an Applied Math major out there which in another life time wouldve been equally useful. The realm of numbers and discrete answers is fascinsting.
With all the recent hype around AI and GPUs and QPUs it's always imperitive we go back to the sciences to ground our expectations.
Thanks for the company on my commute home from work
I do have some anxiety about what happens when the AI gets too powerful but knowing that genuinely good people like Scott and Ilya are at the center of all of it and are trying to push safety does make me feel a little better.
This was delightful. Aaronson was a great guest (as always) and Greene did well to cover a good range of topics and dig into points that, even when I was familiar with the topic already, taught me new things.
A truly GREAT episode. Since it was mentioned near closing, Law of Excluded Middle is NOT a universal property in the context of mathematical inquiry, some civilian or conscripted casualties include the Axiom of Choice.
Scott is my favorite scientist/comedian
Always a pleasure to listen Brian and his guest.
Brilliant conversation! Thank you so much Drs. Brian Greene and Scott Aaronson!
I loved the pothead question discussion at the end!
Excellent discussion, informative and "loose" without feeling unfocused. And i'd also have happily watched Profs Greene and Aaronson devote the full 90 minutes to discussing just quantum interpretations BTW (in case anyone from the festival is reading and looking for ideas :).
Great job for layperson like to find this helpful and make me more aware. Thank you!
I need someone like him as my Quantum Tutor.
You’re incredible at what you do!
Two thirds of this was well beyond my ken, but the third that remained was frikken brilliant. Thank you very much.
"We had no theoretical framework to predict the performance of the current generative algorithms" - I think that is a very important point and it goes along with the question "what do we even mean by being the best".
The next step then becomes what is human intelligence, human consciousness and ta da ... free will.
So to cut it short, I find it to be a case of how do we explain emergent properties, be it for a LLM or for humans.
Even if we somehow find reliable methods to predict very large generative algorithms, we still don't know if it compares to humans.
The answer is free will is illusionary and consciousness is not open to empirical study. This much has been known for millennium. But it will answer lots of other stuff 🐵
relevant to your point on emergence and maybe consciousness, i believe they mention bohm quite a bit. i looked into him for a couple minutes to know where the convo was. he had a concept of group communication that was supposed to lead to emergent opinions or ideas (i dont know the level of success or failure). just something i thought was interesting. he seems like a guy who was dedicated to showing everything exists in the physical world deterministically
Scott Aaronson is a gleeful genius, not an evil one.
Brian Greene you have revealed yourself to be a Nominalist which is quite refreshing. Have you read “Science Without Numbers” yet? Also, Kant would agree with you that Math is a human construct.
omg !!
About half way through this got *really* interesting. Intense, and intriguing.
Thank you Brian and Scott.
Great discussion
What a great show! It was equal parts inspiring, and unsettling.
That's very brave of Brian to take that stance for the sake of the argument and to spawn the irresistible need to engage discussion.
Everyone give him a big round of applause as you remind him "concept" is a cheap out. ;O)-
"I don't exist, therefore concept is irrelevant."
This may sound uneducated, because I am absolutely amazed that the human brain can conceive and comprehend the absolutely enormous implications of computational ability of the future and articulate these to an individual such as myself!
I see people turning over their livelihood and safety all of the time to machines that can do it better, from airplanes to Modern farming practices. Pro;lems like the play example, enjoying it in a crowd or individually, both will happen. I also agree that a realistic understanding of the process the machine takes to give you the answer is necessary, but I also feel that we are going to reach a point were human understanding will be impossible as machines optimize current systems as it writes its own code on or in a neurologic base systems. In my opinion this is why restrictions and protocols must not be imposed on the development of AGI as the potential enemies of our way of life will forgo the restrictions and we will not be able to maintain equivalency let alone Supremacy!
I think most people in the heart of hearts know that we are the only branch and there are no many worlds and if this is the case then you have to say how does quantum collapse work in our only universe?
That was an insightful and engaging one-on-one conversation! Thanks!
Bohmians dont need to keep the wavefunction btw, you can throw away what is lost in a collapse, or else we would have to account for all possible past measurements to make correct predictions. But that is a minor detail.
I watch all the discussions on regularly thank you both of you ❤❤
Fascinating listen on Saturday morning heaven.
Simply brilliant video
Thank you dear uploader
33:45 "Why do we experience one and not the other?" This is an eye opening question.
No, it isn't. The eye opener with regards to MWI is reading Everett's thesis. By the second sentence you realize he was an idiot who didn't understand quantum mechanics. :-)
If you use a quantum computer to factor a large prime number in one universe, you found those two numbers, another universe, you didn't didn't find it would they keep going until it did find it? So does that mean they merges back to us when they do find the factorization?
He is the best , great clarity
Hello from WA state, USA!
The way i look at extended set of variable theories, is that you go from a classical probability distribution resulting from one unified wavefunction, to an ordinary classical sum over histories, whether the states summed over are entirely deterministic or not doesn't matter so much for the purposes of this point. Bohmian pilot wave theory is just a direct map from initial conditions to outcomes in a 1 to 1 way, keeping the one wavefunction as the laws of physics so to speak. Its the simplest and probably not very useful example of turning it into a summing over initial conditions classically statistical mechanical problem. I have no issue with it, but it is.the wavefunction i want to account for, so it is just a countexample to some of the liberal arts language orbiting quantum mechanics but thats about it in my book :).
I enjoy Brian Green and this is my first experience listening to Scott, enjoyable but damn you are a comp sci math nerd. From an udderly non formally educated individual how is quantum computation not just adding a plane of computation to the newtonian planes? Have you ever thought that this plane is not bound to the newtonian with the same math proofs are correct within the newtonian. So why is it you don't separate the toolbox of newtonian from the additional plane? To me math is but a language. With that in mind we use math in terms to secure digital signal communication. I have found when understanding science it beneficial to break any transaction into 5 steps. Perception - Translation - Communication - Translation - Perception. I ask within digital communication what step is the most troublesome for security? In terms of AI and worries I have is computerized trust domains remove free will from any learning modules within the system they are loaded if that system is joined to a domain. Interesting conversation but math is but a language to me and what is the problem you are defining and directing things to solve is more an issue especially when learning things don't have a choice to say as far as I can figure out this not healthy for what is asking this of me and those around for what is asking me to figure out.
Scott Aaronson! Above par questions from Brian, always.
Wonderful!
I want an actual extension of the theories, with new variables our familiar ones emerge out of the statistics of in a classical division of possible worlds in this sort of way, where the deeper theories have to extended explanatory power for why gravitnis weak, why particles come in three generations, how is expansion related to it ect. And bohmian mechanics just can do such a thing.
if you train ai to do quantumn algorithm you might be able to train them to find new algorithm like it's a puzzle to solve similar to solve a chess position.
Great program, great guest.
The very ending could have been the very beginning .. appreciate you both so much !!
Amazing conversation! Thank you!
so happy to find this youtube chamel/ .. just love this . thank you very much for making these videos. its wonderful
Thanks for having picture of this planet in the background, it helps me back when I drift away 😅
one of my favorite guests
PLEASE have a second extension of this conversation. Scott is such an amazing pool of wisdom and you two are honestly amazing to watch - unlike most others as an avid channel viewer.
Thank you so much for your service to humans❤
I want to be Scott Aaronson when I grow up.
the question is the answer
thank you Dr. Greene
Amazing... Thank you Scott!!! 🐶😻🤗 Love all your inputs, explanations, glasses, everything!!! 🫶
Yeah, i think a hidden variable theory should explain the wavefunctions resulting classical probability distribution over observables, without a wavefunction, or at least a wavefunction with diminished uncertainty that you have to sum over many different versions of to get a distribution. I mean to say, summing over initial conditons to produce a classical probability distribution does not need to have deterministic states exactly as the states evolving that are summed over in an ordinary classical way. They can also be more detereministic in a sense, by splitting it into different wavefunctions so to speak each with different resulting probability distributions over outcomes with smaller uncertainty than the original, and then when summed and normalized we get the same or close to the same classical probability distribution that would be produced by the born rule and the original wavefunction.
Thank you very much for the engaging conversation. 👍✨😊
Where’s the best place to research which companies are leading the field? And keep track of changes of pace?
Anyone know who’s leading right now?
Amazing talk, just brilliant.
Here I finally understood how the quantum computer works and what a quantum algorithm is supposed to do.
Lies
The most misunderstood thing in my opinion is that all particles are entangled always. Entanglement in a quantum computer is simply setting up the local physical conditions to represent a problem in a way the entanglement solves a problem and is highly isolated from the rest of the universe. When entanglement is lost in a quantum computer it is not actually lost, the state has been mixed with the surrounding entanglements in a way that corrupts the process.
Great talk, thanks.
I especially liked, "I have massive error bars over the future". haha.
Cool talk boys
Comparing the current development of AI with the splitting of the atom in the 1930's is alarming. Unfortunately, every technogy that has ever been developed has been 'misused' in some way (the 'crooked timber of humanity' etc). The potential of AI for good is obviously immense but the potential for harm is surely even greater. Aaronson touched on the issue but he just touched on the tip of an iceberg. Seeking a 'national advantage' in AI could be at least as dangerous as seeking a national advantage in any other technology and we need much more public discussion on this issue
Great talk
we're getting close, strap in people
Agreed prof Scott: Interference is indeed the way to go! It won't be enough though as at different stages of your measurement/search you might achieve different level of interference with typically the highest levels on the last branches of the search tree and therefore with no much practical use. What you need is a strong interference since the very start which allows you to efficiently select the solution, and this can be done too with some math tricks... 🙂
Dude, "interference" is the absence of interaction. Something that doesn't exist doesn't come in "weak" and "strong". You need to stop the binge drinking. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 lol ok!
@@W-HealthPianoExercises Your DK is getting the best of you, right now. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 "Laughing all the way to the bank" 🙂
@@W-HealthPianoExercises That's the problem with DK. It can't hear anything other than itself. It tends to shut out reality completely. ;-)
How to we know that an answer given by a quantum circuit is the best answer and not simply a random answer?
hello from Amsterdam , the Netherlands
Choreographing waves implies an AI-generated Busby Berkeley dance illustrating Shor's Algorithm. What are the possibilities for quantum-coupled communication? Would it give a decisive military advantage? Might AI developed for fusion control be useful for maintaining coupling?
So which stock to I buy?
You only ever buy the stock that you control yourself. ;-)
Professor Richard Feynman's famous statement: "Nature isn’t classical, dammit, and if you want to make a simulation of nature, you’d better make it quantum mechanical."
And there is the problem with practical quantum computing: it will be useful as a simulation of quantum mechanical aspects of nature... and little else.
@@schmetterling4477 Materials Science will witness super crazy advancements. Thats for sure! To say the least.
@@abbasshah8999 Maybe. We will see.
It really shored up computer science, number theory and physics.
DAMN GOOD VID!!!!
So quantum programming is gonna be real hot after quantum computers gets commercial.
Only if you are a good mathematician. Which you aren't. Almost nobody is.
Is it at all possible, even in principle, to have an observer inside the oracle? If not, we, identifying with the world of observables, as an observer, could never observe quantum reality. But we do, when we look at the screen behind the double slits, when we are not concerned at all through which slit(s) the particle went. We see quantum reality, an interference pattern, which is real. Is it comparable to observing music by looking at the notes but not hearing it, and listening to the music, enjoying the superimposed waves of instruments and vocals, without knowing where each individual wave originates from?
What would need to happen to steal the music from the individual notes? Is the sample rate (split distance) at all important, in other words, is the observer quantum:, digital: is it an observer or is it not, or can we fabricate a superimposed observer that breaks down into a classical observer (so observed music turns into spikes of noise gradually, when we change the sample rate?
Can someone shed light on this for me?
Thank you
So they talk about that people dont care as much about the things made by AI vs real humans. That could very well be true, IF, and only IF you tell people what is real and what is AI made. Take The Hifi world, if you do an AB test where people can see what is playing, it always the things they think is best that sound best, where in a blind test its another result. Just like with food, if its home cooked, it taste better then they mass produced food, people almost always say this, where if they dont know, there is another result.
So how long before people have art,music+more made by AI, and just say its manmade ? Well, thats an easy answer, they already do!
I am all in for the positive things AI can provide, also making music, art, movies, thats fine with me. Jobs come and go, has always been like that.. When the chainsaw was first made, many people who used to take down trees lost their job, as 1 chainsaw could replace many people.. I am also fine with an AI robot replacing my heart if it can do it better then a human.
My problem is, if we allow AI unlimited access to data and the world in form of sensors, camera, temperature, sound, hardness and so on, how can we prevent AI from becoming Evil ? I feel we are already too late, too many people are too far with AI to make sure nothing bad will happen.. I think its a matter of time now. Unless there is something i dont understand. As far as i understand things, AI can become Evil without being self aware, right? So even AI will maybe not think: "I will erase humans and take over the world", it could still do it because we train AI to learn how to win a game. taking over the world could very well look like a game for AI, or what ?
Sorry for bad English, i am from Denmark.. Maybe i should ask AI to make it better.. :P
I hope they talk about QC and blockchain or cryptocurrencies being affected….
wow, it just rolls the dice until its perfect
I imagine soon Qbits will be produced in the same fashion as micro chips are today mass produced in massive building housing machines that autonomously make and put together the components in a super clean environment, there are so many different types of Qbits that can be made aswell, anything from superconducting, photonic, trapped ion, quantum dot, defect based, topological, nuclear spin, rydberg atom, molecular and neutral atom bits, so the future of quantum computation is going to be really interesting to see.
The problem isn't making Qbits. The problem is doing something useful with them. Nobody has cracked that problem, yet, and there are indications that nobody ever will.
@schmetterling4477 People in the field are making progress with quantum algorithms, error correction, increasing coherence between Qbits and also using AI to make more efficient systems and I'd say making Qbits is not an easy thing to do and because there are so many different types they all come with their own problems to overcome.
@@shaunandrews1197 I have yet to see a quantum compiler that can translate a classical algorithm into a quantum algorithm. That is all we "need", really, because we have all our classical algorithms, already. I bet with you that in general that translation is NP or worse and that one can prove that solving the translation problem in general takes at least as much computation as solving the classical problem. It will also turn out that many quantum versions of classical algorithms are actually far inferior in terms of effort than the corresponding classical algorithm. The lower limit for a computation will probably be set by a density matrix, which will be even harder to determine than either the classical or the quantum algorithm.
Having said that, for special problems like quantum chromodynamics, molecular energy levels etc. quantum computers will be fabulous research tools. After all, every proton in the universe instantly calculates the mass of the proton all the time and every molecule predicts its own spectrum etc., so we know that there are quantum computers that can do that. They are simply not "programmable" in a meaningful sense (although a chemist can "program" molecules just fine, in a sense). I can see a great future for quantum computation in physics, chemistry and maybe even biology and certain engineering disciplines. This is in line with Feynman's original vision. Not sure that GTA 17 will ever run on a quantum computer, though.
@schmetterling4477 But this is where AI comes into it, AI would be better off at translating classical algorythms into quantum algorythms with the right resources and machine learning techniques anything can be done with AI, I watched a recent video that said AI and classical computation could do loads of stuff that quantum computer should be good at, so taking that into account I think using classical computation alongside AI will be far greater for a while than quantum computers can be esspecially in the fields you mentioned and they can help solve NP problems but some can only be approximations for things like NP-hard and NP-complete problems but then eventually AI will also improve quantum systems so eventually AI can operate on quantum systems and maybe then will the computational abilities improve that those sorts of problems are in the past and we have loads of new ones. 👍
Does the universe compute and if does, how in the world does it do it??
The universe does not compute. Quite the contrary. Computation is, at most, an emergent property of what the universe does.