Submitted by upyoars t3_zxs6b8 in Futurology
Comments
chuckziss t1_j222wen wrote
Talk about misleading title… even in your summary comment, you state that the quantum computer (QC) didn’t actually reveal any new information.
No actual breakthrough was made, and it’s a bunch of hot air suggesting that the QC could have potentially helped. I get that there is hype around this stuff, but we have to stop sensationalising headlines
FuturologyBot t1_j223i35 wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/upyoars:
> Quantum researchers at Ford have just published a new preprint study that modeled crucial electric vehicle (EV) battery materials using a quantum computer. While the results don’t reveal anything new about lithium-ion batteries, they demonstrate how more powerful quantum computers could be used to accurately simulate complex chemical reactions in the future.
> Developing materials using computers has a huge advantage: the researchers don’t have to perform every possible experiment physically which can be incredibly time consuming. Tools like AI and machine learning have been able to speed up the research process for developing novel materials, but quantum computing offers the potential to make it even faster. For EVs, finding better materials could lead to longer lasting, faster charging, more powerful batteries.
> Traditional computers use binary bits—which can be a zero or a one—to perform all their calculations. While they are capable of incredible things, there are some problems like highly accurate molecular modeling that they just don’t have the power to handle—and because of the kinds of calculations involved, possibly never will.
> Instead of regular bits, quantum computers use qubits that can be a zero, a one, or both at the same time. Qubits can also be entangled, rotated, and manipulated in other wild quantum ways to carry more information. This gives them the power to solve problems that are intractable with traditional computers—including accurately modeling molecular reactions. Plus, molecules are quantum by nature, and therefore map more accurately onto qubits, which are represented as waveforms.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/zxs6b8/ford_used_a_quantum_computer_to_find_better_ev/j21z3sn/
[deleted] t1_j2256jj wrote
[deleted]
TheUmgawa t1_j226c0v wrote
I feel like you should have closed this with, "Boo that man! Booooo!!!" and then slap that downvote button.
chuckziss t1_j226h3j wrote
Perhaps I was a bit harsh haha. It’s still an interesting article, and I find the use interesting, but the title was a bit of a stretch
formerlyanonymous_ t1_j22apq1 wrote
Title made it sound like they hooked up ChatGBT to a quantum computer.
flompwillow t1_j22d6sh wrote
I can’t wait for their result to get printed out….42.
icebeat t1_j22enwc wrote
Maybe they should use the computer to fix the shit show with the car dealers
sold_snek t1_j22g2yy wrote
That's a lot of words to say nothing at all.
itsmeyour t1_j22gjrl wrote
What type of things can QC do currently? Looking for an answer but getting tons of ad sites can't even find a solid statement
rather_be_hiking t1_j22h10i wrote
I agree - all fair points that you made
chuckziss t1_j22hzvv wrote
The three NISQ (Noisy Intermediate Scale Quantum) applications that are promising are VQE (Variational Quantum Eigensolver), QAOA (Quantum Approximate Optimisation Algorithms), and QML (Quantum Machine Learning).
VQE is probably what Ford tried to use here, and it calculates the ground state energy of a molecule. Even using many QCs in parallel gives mediocre results for VQE when compared to super computers.
QAOA can be used for optimisation problems that are difficult for classical computers. We really don’t have enough qubits to out compete super computers, but there are some fun novel experiments you can design in matrix completion, or supply chain optimisation.
QML is honestly a joke. It’s just a tradition ML model with one quantum layer. I can go into more detail, but it’s quite underwhelming in the end.
The bottom line is that there really isn’t a good current application of QC. All of the above algorithms are out-competed by a decent classical computer.
I’ll gladly throw some sources your way if you’re interested in learning more.
itsmeyour t1_j22iihb wrote
Oh man, if its not too much work for you. Already I feel like you helped me understand the layout of the land. I think I remember for a while the basic "can we entangle and hold" was the mission. Very much appreciate you
chuckziss t1_j22jb9p wrote
I’m not sure about that quote, but my interpretation is that the mission is to store information in qubits for longer.
This is still largely true - current devices are bad at keeping information, and often you get qubit “decoherence” (decay/loss of information) such that you can no longer do anything useful with the information.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.14940 - talks about VQA which comprise VQE and QAOA. This paper does computing with many devices at once. It demonstrates things well, but the end result is still solving a trivial problem.
https://community.qiskit.org/textbook/ch-machine-learning/machine-learning-qiskit-pytorch.html - all the qiskit tutorials are great if you want hands on learning, but this just demonstrates the state of the art in combining classical and quantum machine learning. The end result is just an MNIST model… which is very doable with classical computing on its own.
I’ll leave it there, but happy to continue the conversation.
CoolEnemy t1_j22jksd wrote
Yo i would really the the sources if you can
chuckziss t1_j22jou2 wrote
I replied in another comment - happy to add more specific sources if you want
[deleted] t1_j22k1dj wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j22m9z3 wrote
[removed]
wagner56 t1_j22nqzw wrote
>While the results don’t reveal anything new about lithium-ion batteries, they demonstrate how more powerful quantum computers could be used to accurately simulate complex chemical reactions in the future.
So Ford didnt use ... to find ... ???????
More it being plans for future attempts at progress.
[deleted] t1_j22ocyk wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j22p4o0 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j22tn5y wrote
[removed]
bremidon t1_j2385jt wrote
>While the results don’t reveal anything new about lithium-ion batteries
*sigh*
ArcticCelt t1_j23f0kg wrote
>No actual breakthrough was made, and it’s a bunch of hot air suggesting that the QC could have potentially helped.
It's like for me to declare that "I browse reddit to find the motivation to do my chores and daily tasks and be more efficient."
It doesn't work at all but I still do it.
[deleted] t1_j23ltik wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j23pcpo wrote
[removed]
FIicker7 t1_j23pex4 wrote
Wouldn't a neural net be more productive?
Wouldn't a neural net be more productive?
Like a lot more?
MatterDeFact t1_j23rl3n wrote
Ford uses pool of manatees to find better EV battery materials
Diablojota t1_j23y0vr wrote
But what’s the question? We will need to build another super computer to find out what the question is.
Sierra419 t1_j23yw11 wrote
Typical Ford. Not saying this just because I was laid off recently, but this company is so far up their own butt it wouldn’t surprise me if they wrote this article themselves.
[deleted] t1_j23zw2n wrote
[removed]
CantRememberPass10 t1_j2401s2 wrote
No this post is trash - it’s like all the articles talking about carbon capture as going to save us when the problem is… stop creation. Reduce reuse recycle but the BIGGEST PART is the REDUCE….
Z3R0FA1TH t1_j240apy wrote
will the computer find that children are mining the toxic cobalt used for their batteries and being used as slaves?
jam3s2001 t1_j2420f1 wrote
Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
gbchrome t1_j24344q wrote
Yep. Bought a Ford 5 years ago & I regret it. Wish I had bought a Toyota. One brand allows self driving via comma ai & one doesn’t.
Aggressive_Bug93 t1_j246za3 wrote
This seems like pr to combat the recently revealed slave labor used in cobalt mining in the Congo that all battery’s company’s are complicit in covering up
[deleted] t1_j24a9rh wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j24bgf2 wrote
[removed]
peteythefool t1_j24fvc3 wrote
So this means invented FTL travel that one time I emptied half a lighter into a water bottle with a little hole in the cap and light it on fire and the bottle flew across the table like a rocket and hit one of my mates in the face?
Cuz that's exactly what I was trying to do, so someone owes me a Nobel Prize!
NateinOregon t1_j24ggfu wrote
Why don’t they use the same technology to design a line of vehicles that blows everyone away? Could have sworn that Farley was just talking about the quality of their vehicles. And it was not great.
omeara4pheonix t1_j24ka2n wrote
Science and tech reporting is awful.
ffigeman t1_j24kl0j wrote
Used it, didn't succeed
Substantial_Act_1995 t1_j24m147 wrote
This sub has gone absolutely dog shit recently. Years ago it was actually good and not fear driven propaganda or bullshit like this,
LiCHtsLiCH t1_j24oxel wrote
I always find these headlines interesting. Last I checked "Quantum" computers don't exist, and the only way they could work in theory is at... absolute zero, just like cold fusion. Not even the issue I have really. Here is quantum computing fundamentals, in theory, at absolute zero.
A regular computer runs on switches, on or off, 2 positions. Originaly thats why they took up whole rooms, each one or zero was a literal glass tube. Well a quantum computer, fundamentally isn't a single position switch and if you were to think of it in terms of glass tubes, they could be accurately represented with fluid filled flasks, and the amount of fluid is it's position or state, so one flask could have ALOT of positions. So you could get alot more information per unit space than just binary (relating the position of one, to another) so they could be ALOT faster.
That's more or less the fundamentals of it. Here is my big problem with "using" them. What programming language did you use, poly position programming (non binary if you will) doesn't exist, and we don't even have a functional chip to develop one. Yet somehow, a car company, is cross referencing molecular interchanges of elements to research better ways of making batteries... on the side, with their quantum computer (that doesn't work) and a programming language nobody has even thought about building. Seems a bit sus, but it is popular science, they mix in sci-fi more than randomly and it does add entertainment value, I'm prolly just taking quantum computing wayy too seriously, lol.
cyphersaint t1_j24pb8u wrote
Carbon capture is going to be a necessity. We're simply NOT going to completely stop creation, and we're not likely to get it down to the point where the environment isn't being negatively impacted. Furthermore, zero carbon simply isn't enough. Not with the length of time that carbon stays in the atmosphere.
MadRoboticist t1_j24pluf wrote
Ford didn't claim anything like the title implies. Ford researchers published a paper on their work and the article author just chose to use a flashy untrue title.
byerss t1_j24prkg wrote
“Used to find” implies that something was found.
If someone said “I used an AirTag to find my dog” you would assume the dog was found, otherwise you didn’t find it. You searched for it.
DrLoaky t1_j24qe0w wrote
All the mainstream subs are full of power tripping mods and bad articles... This article is in essence completely pointless for this sub.
ffigeman t1_j24qvkm wrote
You're right it sounded funnier in my head.
upyoars OP t1_j24sr8x wrote
Probably because even if AI designs something amazing, manufacturing that complex design and executing on it could be exceedingly difficult. Researching material compositions for batteries is something that’s probably much easier to execute manufacturing on.
TiredPanda69 t1_j24uo3n wrote
In short
This subreddit is trash
I honestly don't know why I'm still here i thought i unsubscribed a while ago after reading about some other breakthrough technology that is definitely here and real but doesnt exist yet
Zeke_Z t1_j24xl7s wrote
"Ford used quantum computing to quantumly identify the quantum multiphase power compression of current exotic form quantum semi-fermion quantum nano-paradoxical entities by using quantum entanglement to sublimate quantum ultra induction particles for new quantum battery chemistry.......quantum." -Ford trying to be relevant.
Ford is just testing marketing gimmicks on its audience. Absolutely nothing to see here.
imafraidofmuricans t1_j2513j5 wrote
In that case, we are doomed.
cyphersaint t1_j253sxg wrote
Why? Just because it's really expensive to scale up right now doesn't mean it's going to remain that way.
throw-away-deez t1_j259e4b wrote
No they didn't.
(Posting this before I read the article. I will edit this comment after I have read it.)
Edit: Welp, second sentence:
>While the results don’t reveal anything new about lithium-ion batteries, they demonstrate how more powerful quantum computers could be used to accurately simulate complex chemical reactions in the future.
It's easy for a throwaway like me to hate. On the other hand, I have a cursory interest in quantum computing (I like listening to podcasts, occasionally read blogs like Shtetl-Optimized, and try to stay up to date somewhat?) and it's cool to see different applications in the wild that are novel. Even if but a modicum of progress.
A rule-of-thumb for any basically any quantum news is that, if it were true as the title suggests, you'd be hearing about it everywhere. It would be leading in every publication.
[deleted] t1_j25a1lp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j25y8ar wrote
[deleted]
Logantus t1_j2601ir wrote
Yeah the title is just a complete lie. It should say “potential for finding new materials”
Scizmz t1_j26tbqv wrote
As with almost everything I see posted on this sub, this is all hype and no substance. Even the description of quantum computing is pulled from a fking sci-fi book instead of reality.
Scizmz t1_j26tpfw wrote
Please stop linking garbage. This is trash. The title is a lie, there is no substance to the article. It even describes several things incorrectly.
Scizmz t1_j26twd9 wrote
>that all battery’s company’s are complicit in covering up
There are some companies that don't deal with chemistries that use cobalt. Your claim, like the article, is trying too hard.
Aggressive_Bug93 t1_j28e5oa wrote
May or may not be but this article is in response to that claim
upyoars OP t1_j21z3sn wrote
> Quantum researchers at Ford have just published a new preprint study that modeled crucial electric vehicle (EV) battery materials using a quantum computer. While the results don’t reveal anything new about lithium-ion batteries, they demonstrate how more powerful quantum computers could be used to accurately simulate complex chemical reactions in the future.
> Developing materials using computers has a huge advantage: the researchers don’t have to perform every possible experiment physically which can be incredibly time consuming. Tools like AI and machine learning have been able to speed up the research process for developing novel materials, but quantum computing offers the potential to make it even faster. For EVs, finding better materials could lead to longer lasting, faster charging, more powerful batteries.
> Traditional computers use binary bits—which can be a zero or a one—to perform all their calculations. While they are capable of incredible things, there are some problems like highly accurate molecular modeling that they just don’t have the power to handle—and because of the kinds of calculations involved, possibly never will.
> Instead of regular bits, quantum computers use qubits that can be a zero, a one, or both at the same time. Qubits can also be entangled, rotated, and manipulated in other wild quantum ways to carry more information. This gives them the power to solve problems that are intractable with traditional computers—including accurately modeling molecular reactions. Plus, molecules are quantum by nature, and therefore map more accurately onto qubits, which are represented as waveforms.