Re: NYTimes.com: Will a Chatbot Write the Next ‘Succession’?

[John Clark]

On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 1:24 PM smitra  wrote:

 >
> *GPT may struggle doing the problem in that much simpler way even if you
> walk it through most of thedetails of how to do it,*


Instead of theorizing about what might happen, why not interrogate GPT-4
for yourself and see?

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

fys


>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2ZL_CDP2TJziFvk3qgJTzZqwzXfdWMggEdNJ4DuZgCvA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Physicists create virtual nonabelions for fault-tolerant quantum computers Inbox

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

What we need are not the algorithms, but the ice-cold machinery, coupled with 
AI to make the quantum leap technologically. Quantum computing is said to kick 
large errors along with faster processing. 

Breakthrough in quantum error correction could lead to large-scale quantum 
computers
https://physicsworld.com/a/breakthrough-in-quantum-error-correction-could-lead-to-large-scale-quantum-computers/#:~:text=For%20practical%20large%2Dscale%20quantum,which%20is%20a%20big%20challenge.

If You Think AI Is Hot, Wait Until It Meets Quantum Computing
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2023/03/21/if-you-think-ai-is-hot-wait-until-it-meets-quantum-computing/?sh=6b3e8c711ff6

And always the big, BOO! of course!
https://nypost.com/2023/04/12/how-quantum-computing-will-speed-up-the-age-of-ai/

Here's a thought for JC. What IF we soon, have server farms of quantum 
computers loaded with AI? All that cold, all that electrical power required, 
not bloody likely! But if, and your New Testament is accurate? Jesus then 
"descends from the clouds," meaning, cloud computing. Then, via QC+ AI & The 
Resurrection happens? 
Whatd'ya say?
Me Luv Quantum Woo! (I really do!). woo-woo-woo-woo!! -Curley Joe, Stooge. 



-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, May 15, 2023 7:21 am
Subject: Re: Physicists create virtual nonabelions for fault-tolerant quantum 
computers Inbox

On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 3:18 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:


 
>>ME: Any calculation involving quantum mechanics could be done billions or 
>>trillions of times faster on a quantum computer. It's easy to calculate the 
>>light spectrum of hydrogen, the simplest element, but doing the same thing 
>>for helium the second simplest , requires months of calculations on the 
>>largest supercomputer on earth, and the sun will turn into a red giant before 
>>such a computer could calculate the spectrum of one of the heavier elements. 
>>And trying to figure out what spectrum molecules will produce is even more 
>>difficult.
 
 > Yes, some things are faster to measure than to calculate.  And I note that 
 > recently a classical algorithm was found for folding of proteins (which was 
 > formerly touted as THE application for quantum computation): 

True. We have quantum algorithms that can solve problems much faster than any 
known classical algorithm, however nobody has been able to prove that there is 
not a classical algorithm that can solve any problem just as fast as the 
quantum variety that we just haven't found yet. The reason we haven't been able 
to prove that is because nobody has been able to prove that P≠ NP even though 
nearly every mathematician alive believes that nondeterministic polynomial 
problems (problems that are hard to calculate but easy to check) can NOT be 
solved in polynomial time (problems with N elements in which the time required 
to solve increases as N gets larger as X^N, not  N^X). The P=NP question is 
perhaps the greatest unsolved problem in all of mathematics; if despite 
everybody's expectations it turns out that P really is equal to NP and if the 
algorithm could be found then it's true, you wouldn't need quantum computers, 
the conventional variety would work just as well. I could be wrong but I don't 
expect that to happen.  

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
yum


 w3x
  
  
    
  
 Brent
 
 On 5/13/2023 2:58 PM, John Clark wrote:
  
   On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 5:14 PM Lawrence Crowell 
 wrote:


> Curious, for a part of my discussions with GPT-4 involve the relationship 
> between anyons and a lattice form of supersymmetry. Nonabelions can then act 
> as a sort of supersymmetric protection of quantum states.
    If this can be made practical then this new development will be a very big 
deal, in fact about as big a deal as deals get. And as far as I can tell there 
are no scientific roadblocks, just engineering difficulties. They're virtual 2D 
Nonabelions not real ones but as far as making a topological quantum computer 
is concerned that distinction is not very important. John K Clark    See what's 
on my new list at  Extropolis naa
  
  
 
 
   On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 1:58:03 PM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:
  
   As if all the news about GPT-4 were not enough, this is an article from the 
journal Nature that that went online yesterday: 
  
  Physicists create virtual nonabelions for fault-tolerant quantum computers
  
  It's about a preprint that just went online; they claim "unambiguous 
realization of non-Abelian topological order and demonstrate control over 
them". Technically they're virtual Anyons not real ones, but from the 
perspective of an engineer trying to make a Fault Tolerant Quantum Computer the 
difference between real and virtual is not important:  
  Creation of Non-Abelian Topological Order and Anyons on a Trapped-Ion 
Processor
  
  
  











  
  




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 

Re: NYTimes.com: Will a Chatbot Write the Next ‘Succession’?

[smitra]

On 29-04-2023 22:39, John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 4:28 PM smitra  wrote:

https://nyti.ms/3VlIBDo#permid=124757243 [1]

You say that GPT4 doesn't understand what it is saying, but did you
read my post about what happened when Scott Aaronson gave his final
exam on Quantum Computers to GPT4? The computer sure acted as if it
understood what it was saying!

John K Clark


If I read his account of the xam on posted here:

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7209

Then while I'm impressed about how much progress has been made with AI 
systems being able to communicate in plain language, I don't see much 
evidence that it understands anything at all. Even though the exact same 
questions with answers are not posted on the Internet, a student with 
poor knowledge of the subject who could very fast search the entire 
Internet would be able to score a similar result and you would then see 
a similar patters in ha questions it got right and wrong.


The way we evaluate students who we suspect of have cheated, is to 
invite them at the office for some questioning, We then ask the student 
to do some problems on the blackboard and try to get to the bottom of 
whether or not the student has a proper understanding of the subject 
consistent with the exam score.


That's why I think that the only proper way to evaluate GPT is via such 
a dialogue where you ask follow up questions that go to the hart of the 
matter.


If we want to test of GPT has properly mastered contour integration, I 
would first start with asking to give me the derivation of the integral 
of sin(x)/x dx from minus to plus infinity. It will probably blurt out 
the standard derivation that involves integrating exp(i z)/z that 
bypasses the origin along  a small circle of radius epsilon and you then 
have to subtract that contribution of that half circle and take the 
limit of epsilon to zero.


This is the standard textbook derivation which is actually quite a bit 
more complicated with all this fiddling with epsilon than a different 
derivation which is not widely published. All you need to do is right at 
th start when you write the integral as the limit of R to infinity of 
the integral from minus to plus R of sin(x)/x dx, to ud]se Cauchy's 
theorem to change to integration path from  along the real axis to one 
which bypasses the origin You can do that in any arbitrary way, we can 
let the contour pass it from above. But because sin(z) for complex z 
cannot be written as the imaginary part of exp(i z), we must now use 
that sin(z) = [exp(i z) - exp(- i z)]/(2 i). And we then split the 
integral into two parts for each of these terms. The integral, from the 
first term is then completed by an arc of radius R in the upper 
half-plane and this integral yields zero, while the integral for the 
second term is completed in the lower half-plane and this then picks up 
the contribution from the pole at zero.


Clearly this is a much simpler way of computing the integral, no 
fiddling with epsilon involved at all  but GPT may struggle doing the 
problem in that much simpler way even if you walk it through most of the 
details of how to do it, because it's not widely published and it 
doesn't understand anything at all about complex analysis at all.


Saibal

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cdf9deadf2976b5f1fe7f8a912e447bf%40zonnet.nl.

Re: Physicists create virtual nonabelions for fault-tolerant quantum computers Inbox

[John Clark]

On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 3:18 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>>ME: Any calculation involving quantum mechanics could be done billions or
>> trillions of times faster on a quantum computer. It's easy to calculate the
>> light spectrum of hydrogen, the simplest element, but doing the same thing
>> for helium the second simplest , requires months of calculations on the
>> largest supercomputer on earth, and the sun will turn into a red giant
>> before such a computer could calculate the spectrum of one of the heavier
>> elements. And trying to figure out what spectrum molecules will produce is
>> even more difficult.
>
>
> > *Yes, some things are faster to measure than to calculate.  And I note
> that recently a classical algorithm was found for folding of proteins
> (which was formerly touted as THE application for quantum computation): *
>

True. We have quantum algorithms that can solve problems much faster than
any known classical algorithm, however nobody has been able to prove that
there is not a classical algorithm that can solve any problem just as fast
as the quantum variety that we just haven't found yet. The reason we
haven't been able to prove that is because nobody has been able to prove
that P≠ NP even though nearly every mathematician alive believes that
nondeterministic polynomial problems (problems that are hard to calculate
but easy to check) can *NOT* be solved in polynomial time (problems with N
elements in which the time required to solve increases as N gets larger as
X^N, not  N^X). The P=NP question is perhaps the greatest unsolved problem
in all of mathematics; if despite everybody's expectations it turns out
that P really is equal to NP and if the algorithm could be found then it's
true, you wouldn't need quantum computers, the conventional variety would
work just as well. I could be wrong but I don't expect that to happen.

 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

yum

w3x
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> On 5/13/2023 2:58 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 13, 2023 at 5:14 PM Lawrence Crowell <
>> goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> *> Curious, for a part of my discussions with GPT-4 involve the
>>> relationship between anyons and a lattice form of supersymmetry.
>>> Nonabelions can then act as a sort of supersymmetric protection of quantum
>>> states.*
>>
>>
>> If this can be made practical then this new development will be a very
>> big deal, in fact about as big a deal as deals get. And as far as I can
>> tell there are no scientific roadblocks, just engineering difficulties.
>> They're virtual 2D Nonabelions not real ones but as far as making a
>> topological quantum computer is concerned that distinction is not very
>> important.
>> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
>> 
>> naa
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 1:58:03 PM UTC-5 John Clark wrote:
>>>
 As if all the news about GPT-4 were not enough, this is an article
 from the journal Nature that that went online yesterday:

 Physicists create virtual nonabelions for fault-tolerant quantum
 computers
 

 It's about a preprint that just went online; they claim "*unambiguous
 realization of non-Abelian topological order and demonstrate control over
 them*". Technically they're virtual Anyons not real ones, but from the
 perspective of an engineer trying to make a Fault Tolerant Quantum Computer
 the difference between real and virtual is not important:

 Creation of Non-Abelian Topological Order and Anyons on a Trapped-Ion
 Processor 




>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0PMM1CxaZ2KyW5F7jkXP6v_35bgPLyvqc1GiC-L%2B7iVw%40mail.gmail.com.