#
**residentmouse**
t1_iuqk9q8 wrote

Reply to comment by **Rogaar** in **Launch of Aquila, the first neutral-atom quantum processor with up to 256 qubits.** by **steel_member**

You may want to consider that an example of one of these “very specific tasks” is cryptography, or efficient machine learning algorithms.

Either of these would justify having one in our pocket.

#
**Yeuph**
t1_iur2prf wrote

No, no it wouldn't. We have classical quantum proof cryptography.

Granted there always exists a chance some brilliant mathematician will discover math to break cryptography that thousands of other PhDs over the course of generations haven't been able to see or discover; with quantum cryptography you're relying on known laws of physics for unbreakable cryptography - so in theory it's more secure, but only trivially so and in practice there is no reason to suspect our quantum proof cryptography is vulnerable to Classical or quantum algorithms

#
**Teamprime**
t1_iurfd7u wrote

The only classical quantum proof cryptography we know is immune to quantum attacks is symmetric, which is much less practical asymmetric. If someone invents an algorithm breaking current asymmetric encryption we may need to use quantum computing to create a new algorithm for that

Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments