Quantum Computer Generates Truly Random Number in Scientific First
Posted by ddrac@reddit | programming | View on Reddit | 113 comments
Posted by ddrac@reddit | programming | View on Reddit | 113 comments
BlueGoliath@reddit
Did a Quantum computer finally do something meaningful?
josefx@reddit
No. We already have hardware for "true" randomness, however properly seeded pseudo randomness tends to be good enough for most cases so people who actually need certified true randomness get to pay premium for it and that is still a few million times cheaper than a quantum computer.
xdethbear@reddit
Yes, we finally have a substandard, multi-million dollar, replacement for that $80 usb TrueRNG dongle.
iamcleek@reddit
better yet, it did something unpredictable!
BlueGoliath@reddit
Finally, a Quantum computer doing unpredictable things. That decades of spending and research really came through.
josefx@reddit
Isn't that in contradiction with Chaos Theory? Without knowing the exact initial state you cannot accurately predict a complex physical system and have to live with significant amounts of limitations and uncertainty.
eightysixmonkeys@reddit
Quantum computing is so hard to read about. That shit is in the Stone Age and every article is always hyping it up like it’s about to become the new computing standard
Jwosty@reddit
Who knows when it will land, but when it does, it’ll happen fast. Like AI
Wtygrrr@reddit
So you think that when AI comes, it will happen fast?
Jwosty@reddit
Why am I getting downvoted lmao? Yeah what we have today came pretty fast. Like, I remember that one LLM before it that went viral because it was able to comtinue whatever text you give it and match the style, like films scripts or Shakespearean, etc. trivial by todays standards but impressive for 2018 or whenever that was.
I’m not some AI bro, in fact I’m quite critical of people who overhype it, but LLMs are a genuine innovation for the things that they’re good at. Maybe I should have said LLMs instead of AI — I do hate that term.
TachosParaOsFachos@reddit
AI seems to be slowing down a little bit.
ObesesPieces@reddit
Mass AI UGC is right around the corner and it's going to be a nightmare.
TachosParaOsFachos@reddit
What is 'mass AI UGC'?
ObesesPieces@reddit
I love how I'm getting downvoted for it and it's my literal job to figure out how to implement it at scale (and honestly my company is small and behind.)
It's User Generated Content.
It's been a trend in marketing over the past several years because consumers trust and convert better on videos that look organic and homemade.
It's cheaper to produce and more effective.
However - it's still time consuming and you have to deal with those pesky creators.
Now imagine a system where I can generate thousands of pieces of content to test against audiences.
Now add in that I can hyper target different groups and audiences based on what they react best to.
Peter Thiel just invested a shitload into one of the market leaders - do you think he cares about selling makeup? No...
A world is coming where each of us gets a custom video tailored to our digital footprint and previous choices trying to get us to think a certain way or react a certain way.
You will be hyper targeted with a constantly evolving stream of rage-bait and bias confirming fake content designed to alter your perception of reality.
Pilchard123@reddit
"User-generated content", probably.
TachosParaOsFachos@reddit
seems like it, wanted to confirm
bentreflection@reddit
It’s probably already here
shevy-java@reddit
Right. I would say we have some solid foundation, but until it becomes universal we are probably decades away. Only fusion reactors are further away.
I have some hope that 3D printing may become better though - some near nanoscale-level printing would be great to have (that is affordable).
DuckDatum@reddit
Has anyone stopped and asked, where are we going with this?
makos124@reddit
As far away from this planet as possible!
alternaivitas@reddit
Are they? They keep hyping up quantum computers, but you never read about fusion, so maybe they planted the seeds in your head that there is no progress.
dbgr@reddit
I read about fusion a lot, there's actually been a ton of progress there. I guess your algorithm just thinks you aren't interested in it
paulo2p@reddit
Right? This year both China and France were able to sustain 1000 seconds of fusion
Perentillim@reddit
Nuh uh, I’ve read 3 Body Problem,‘I know where that leads
ainiku-esp@reddit
Finally, something truly useful to show for all the VC funds invested.
Right?
Deto@reddit
I thought quantum-based random number generators for a while? For example, based on shot noise in electronic diodes. Or you could use decay of a radioactive isotope for this (e.g. the spacing of the noise from a geiger counter). Is it the certification aspect that's novel here?
2299sacramento@reddit
See scott aaronson's blog: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8746
Thea idea is that it is certifiably random under certain complexity assumptions. For the geiger counter example, who is to say when I get those bits from you over the internet you are not tampering with them? Quantum computers allow you to prove to an adversary that these bits are random. Very important in cryptographic contexts.
thetdotbearr@reddit
I skimmed the post but it doesn't seem to explain how you actually do the verification.. like, I don't understand what it even means for these bits to be from a "crazy distribution" if a truly random distribution is supposed to spread out every possibility evenly?
Can't wrap my head around how you'd get bits over the internet and be able to determine they're not "really" random .-.
DuckDatum@reddit
Asymmetric encryption relies on two related keys: a public key and a private key. The idea is that it's easy to perform certain calculations using the public key, but nearly impossible to reverse those calculations without the private key.
You mentioned a 'random number,' which in encryption typically refers to a nonce or initialization vector (IV). This ensures that even if the same data is encrypted multiple times, the output will be different each time (because the number, which is random, will be different). This randomness prevents certain attacks like replay attacks.
To touch on why random numbers are important: if you can regenerate the number (because it wasn’t actually random), then you’re vulnerable to replay attacks.
About the mathematical relationship between the keys: the private and public keys are mathematically related, but they can’t be used to derive one from the other. This makes it very difficult (essentially impossible) for someone to reverse the encryption process without access to the private key.
So they basically share the public key with you, as well as the random number, so that you can validate that the data’s serialized/encrypted representation is derived from the private key. This works even though you don’t have direct access to the private key.
When we say things are impossible, we’re really just saying we calculated how long it would take and nobody should live that long… perhaps even, the universe hasn’t been alive long enough to brute force decrypt some stuff via traditional computers.
2299sacramento@reddit
Check out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson_sampling
So the idea is that there is matrix in quantum mechanics called the permanent. It’s typically modeled as a random matrix since it models some fundamental stochasticity of nature.
The “crazy probability distribution” I mentioned is the distribution of possible states of this permanent matrix. It’s computationally extremely hard to calculate the expected value of this matrix with known algorithms. Specifically, sampling the permanent matrix which is currently thought to be in the #P complexity class https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%99%AFP-complete .
The neat thing is that the expected value of the permanent matrix (ie: the average value) can be sampled from real life processes- namely measurement gathered from boson scattering. The expected value calculation can also be verified by a classical computer.
thetdotbearr@reddit
That makes a bit more sense, thank you. I'm not going to pretend I fully get it, but it seems to share similarities with encryption. That's wild.
Essar@reddit
Certifiably random number have also been produced in experiment (google device-independent randomness expansion).
theanghv@reddit
This should be way higher.
ZiKyooc@reddit
Cloudflare use a video of a walk of lava lamps to encrypt a large part of the internet traffic
myka-likes-it@reddit
That still only results in a seed for a pseudorandom generator.
Deto@reddit
a fully random seed is still a random numnber, is it not?
myka-likes-it@reddit
Technically, you could take a snapshot of the entropy state, feed that in as the seed and get deterministic numbers.
happyscrappy@reddit
And that's how this will be used too. A single random number generator is a performance bottleneck. You just get your entropy and then use it as a seed to a cryptographic quality PRNG. Do that at startup for each server and you're good.
Entropy is awesome. You can mix in any old other non-derived numbers you want with it for seeding. So that way all the servers don't all produce the same numbers. And you can't really reproduce the sequences they have because they have not just the great randomness in there but whatever bullshit they happen to have lying around too like the time, their ethernet HW addr, the length of the longest file in /tmp, whatever. If you can't capture it all you can't reproduce the sequence except by recognizing the point in the sequence and for a cryptographic PRNG that's supposed to be impossible within the lifespan of the universe.
LiftingRecipient420@reddit
But taking that snapshot would change the state, making your seed useless.
myka-likes-it@reddit
In the case of the lava lamps, yeah, old seeds become useless because they simply aren't used.
But that doesn't mean an old state couldn't be used. The random generation API likely has no idea where it's seeds come from. It just turns a seed into a table and shows you the first number.*
(*obv it is more complicated than this in practice, where multiple sources of entropy are used on a successive series of tables.)
orangejake@reddit
And it’s mostly a gimmick.
s33d5@reddit
"Using quantum uncertainty to generate random bits isn't new in itself. Yet by accessing Quantinuum's recently upgraded System Model H2 quantum computer over the internet to carry out the task, the team demonstrated the ultimate game of 'pick a number' could soon be played by just about anybody around the world."
DigThatData@reddit
That's still intellectually dishonest. Truly Random Number generators leveraging to-purpose hardware have been a thing forever, and yes there are services that let you query these over the internet. One of the science agencies of the US govt -- probably NOAA? -- use to operate one. Probably needlessly destroyed along with the rest of the federal government.
Anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator
s33d5@reddit
Yeah tbh the article is pretty odd. They declare that it's a new development but at the same time they say it's been done before.
br0ck@reddit
Until someone spies on the line and intercepts your random number. Now they need to combine with communication interception detection to verify the line wasn't sniffed.
phi_matt@reddit
QaaS: usage-priced truly random number generator. Investment floor @ $10,000
dystopiandev@reddit
Make that $100,000 if OpenAI becomes a distributor
hyphenomicon@reddit
They don't even tell us what the number is in the article! I was going to decide what to eat based on its parity to celebrate finally being capable of free will.
Drunken_Economist@reddit
4
redfournine@reddit
Genuinely curious. What significance does "truly random" have? Why is it important to achieve true random?
Rzah@reddit
The reason we use random numbers is that they aren't predictable, you can't calculate what number will come up next. That's handy whether you're creating encryption for transactions or a whole load of other stuff, eg making a game look realistic.
Except generating a random number has turned out to be a difficult task for a computer, given that the same inputs should always generate the same outputs by design. So we use fake randomness instead, with varying levels of difficulty to predict, from trivial to almost impossible.
This device is claimed to spit out a genuinely random number, unpredictable by design.
jericho@reddit
42.
mcaruso@reddit
https://xkcd.com/221
JanB1@reddit
r/ruleXK34
acdcfanbill@reddit
Doom's slightly longer, and much more random, random number generator...
UnspeakableEvil@reddit
https://imgur.com/random-number-generator-bwFWMqQ
Fumigator@reddit
9
jericho@reddit
lol. Reminds me of the Feynman point in pi. At the 762nd place, there are six nines in a row. So he memorized it till then, so he could say “nine, nine, nine, nine, nine, nine, and so on…”
ZiKyooc@reddit
Randomly every single time
malakon@reddit
My brothers Statistics / Market research company has a random number generator that uses a particle counter and a small radioactive source. It generates real random numbers. Well it's claimed to anyway.
That's sort of quantum, isn't it ?
vomitHatSteve@reddit
It's really a philosophical question as much as a physics one, isn't it? Is anything that happens in conventional, Newtonian/relativistic space truly deterministic? And if so, is what happens in the quantum space truly non-deterministic?
Of course, in regards to practical, cryptographic purposes, the answer is: it doesn't matter. Even if dice are deterministic, no attacker has the ability to parse all the specific conditions that go into determining its result. It is random. God already knows your password and He doesn't need to reverse-engineer your secret key.
Fakin-It@reddit
Either way, it looks like Einstein was wrong about something: God plays dice with the universe after all.
Roi1aithae7aigh4@reddit
Eh, quantum physics is totally deterministic until *you*'re looking at it. God may very well have means to see the universe in its underlying superposition and thus not play dice at all.
Xutar@reddit
The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for finding evidence of Bell's Inequality, which proves that there is no "underlying superposition". If the universe's wave function is all there is, then it's only "deterministic" in the sense that it's Unitary.
You can stretch semantics of what it means for "God to play dice", but I'd argue that for any reasonable definition of "probability" or "randomness", then yes it is truly intrinsic to the model.
Roi1aithae7aigh4@reddit
Bell's inequality is incompatible with hidden variables, but has no problem at all with a superposition of states.
k2900@reddit
This is a common misconception. There doesn't need to be an observer to collapse the wave function. Only a measurement. This is shown through variations of the double slit such as quantum eraser experiments.
vomitHatSteve@reddit
The actual physics here is definitely above my pay grade, but that does seem correct.
The distinction is still well into the philosophical real rather than practical or even theoretical computing.
Xutar@reddit
It is also a practical difference to have certifiably random number generation. It's not about an attacker parsing the non-quantum "randomness", it's about being able to prove to yourself that it was random.
It's sort of like "theoretically bug-free programs". They aren't just bug-free in the sense that no one has found a bug yet, it's that the code itself has been run through a proof-checker which has fully verified it's range of possible inputs and outputs, to the standard of a mathematical proof.
You can argue that we're just moving the "bug potential" up a level in abstraction, but it's practically useful to know the exact context that something could fail and when it couldn't possibly.
vomitHatSteve@reddit
Sure, but the quantum random algorithm isn't more verifiably random than some non-quantum generators.
Xutar@reddit
I believe it is, that's what this whole article is actually about. The actual paper on Arxiv is here. I can't say I fully understand their verification procedure, but it's verified against fundamental laws of quantum mechanics. It's not like a non-quantum generator which verifies randomness against an attacker's practical inability to sort the entropy of thermodynamics. I'd argue it's more verifiably-random for the same reason that quantum mechanics allows for truly random outcomes that don't depend on causality of the past.
happyscrappy@reddit
Yep. Is it that dice are random or we just don't know the full system state. Likely the latter. But will we ever know that? To do that might require so much information that we can't even store it because it would require more atoms than the universe has to store it.
vomitHatSteve@reddit
Exactly. Hence the comparison to God. If an attack vector requires nigh-omnoscience, it's not really an attack vector
Hidden_driver@reddit
There are people who would argue that if it's not truly random it can be hacked. Like you pointed out it's not realistic, but the boomer CTO doesn't care, as he doesn't understand the problem, so we need to spend massive amounts of cash on useless shit like generating random runmbers from lava lamps.
vomitHatSteve@reddit
The thing is if it isn't truly random, it can be hacked. But "not truly random" in a cryptography context means deterministic in software. Anything that is a random Newtonian physics event in meat-space is truly random as far as encryption is concerned.
Lava lamps are a perfectly fine source of entropy and also overkill for most applications. Quantum computers are massively overkill for most applications (until the hardware becomes cheap enough to bundle into standard-builds)
olearyboy@reddit
There have been hardware random number generators for ages, usually using something like background radiation measurements to generate them
turikk@reddit
So, not random then.
olearyboy@reddit
Highly random
turikk@reddit
Random doesn't have a range.
olearyboy@reddit
You got some infinite tape there bud…
Yes random can have limits, and repeats
turikk@reddit
It's literally the point of this topic.
Semantically? Of course outer space radiation noise is incredibly unlikely to be reproducible or determinable. But the actual discussion at hand is the nuance between effectively random and actually random. That's what this quantum computer can supposedly do.
neutronbob@reddit
Agreed, that's why I'm a little mystified by the claims in this article. Are hardware-derived RNs not considered provably random?
painefultruth76@reddit
42.... please tell me it was 42...
MaruSoto@reddit
Oh shit, so it was non-deterministic?
Nobody tell God!
CanvasFanatic@reddit
This is probably just watered down science journalism glossing over complexity, but if not… suck it determinism.
Scared_Astronaut9377@reddit
Any quantum measurement is inherently random. It's been known for 100 years.
CanvasFanatic@reddit
Well it’s a bit more complicated to than that. Lots of people have tried to find an approach that posits the result of measurements is determined by some physics. There’s Bohemian mechanics and there’s the Many Worlds interpretations. Lots of people will talk about how the wave function is deterministic, mutter something about decoherence, cough loudly and proclaim the measurement problem doesn’t really exist.
Personally I’ve always been a fan of true randomness.
Scared_Astronaut9377@reddit
No, it's not more complicated. There hasn't been a single experiment in 100 years indicating any deviation from random behavior. And philosophy like interpretations have nothing to do with it.
Hektorlisk@reddit
Isn't that a completely unprovable claim though? Like, how can we prove that quantum probability shenanigans aren't emergent phenomena of an underlying deterministic set of rules (which we can't observe (yet))?
Scared_Astronaut9377@reddit
Yes, but in the same way most claims about physical reality are not verifiable. That's why the modern scientific approach uses something similar to positivism. A hypothesis becomes a scientific "fact" by multiple failed attempts to falsify it, not by being directly verified.
CanvasFanatic@reddit
I think you’re misunderstanding my point, but that’s okay. I don’t really have any desire to argue about it.
Scared_Astronaut9377@reddit
You don't need to announce that you are ending a reddit conversation, my friend. It's just a waste of everyone's time.
CanvasFanatic@reddit
You seem fun.
currentscurrents@reddit
Trouble is, there's no good way to tell the output of a chaotic system from true randomness.
For example brownian motion is fully deterministic. But if you can't see the molecules knocking the particle around, it's indistinguishable from a random walk.
NeverComments@reddit
That’s a statement that comes with an asterisk, as we assume free will exists in making independent measurements.
Superdeterminism has never been, and can never be, disproven. We just assume it isn’t true for the rest of science to hold up.
Full-Spectral@reddit
Well, they were suspected to be, but not really measurably demonstrated until I guess in the 80s or thereabouts I think.
Scared_Astronaut9377@reddit
Yeah, good point.
k2900@reddit
We know from the CHSH test of Bells theorem that the universe is fundamentally probabilistic.
currentscurrents@reddit
Bell's theorem only rules out local hidden variables.
It could still be deterministic with nonlocal hidden variables, like the pilot wave interpretation of QM.
k2900@reddit
We know from the CHSH test of Bells theorem that the universe is fundamentally probabilistic.
MiroPalmu@reddit
Quantum mechanics describes the probabilities of different things happening. As far as we understand, which specific thing happens is truly random.
jns_reddit_already@reddit
The title has nothing to do with the contents of the Nature paper
david_nixon@reddit
literally tapping into the dark dimension just to get some rando number lol.
shevy-java@reddit
It is said that quantum computers will be truly secure - but how can this be verified? Would it not be possible to have tampered with the hardware and either add a bias or some logging system that would also be impossible to detect?
RampantAI@reddit
Quantum encryption is not going to help if your computer has been compromised. But what it can do is establish a secure channel of communication. Quantum cryptography allows a set of encryption keys to be sent from Alice to Bob. The quantum nature of the communication allows Alice and Bob to know if any of the keys were intercepted. In the event that this happens, the compromised keys are discarded, and the key exchange has to restart. The end result of this quantum key exchange is that Alice and Bob have a set of cryptographic keys that they know has not been intercepted by any other party. At that point even classical encryption is sufficient for secure communication. I don’t know the details of how this is accomplished, just a bit of the theory.
msnshame@reddit
At last. 4.
Linguistic-mystic@reddit
And then this quantum randomness turns out to be a bunch of “if” expressions in the code running our simulation.
Attack or save roll, not charisma score! Those aren’t supposed to be random, they’re the constants added to the rolls!
canb227@reddit
In traditional dnd attributes were decided by dice roll at character creation time
Bachihani@reddit
Joke's on you ha ! Cuz the universe is fundamentally deterministic
LoadCapacity@reddit
Still no better than a coin flip but we'll get there!
anonymous-red-it@reddit
Talk is cheap, show me the code
Scavenger53@reddit
ABucin@reddit
return 42;
life-is-a-loop@reddit
// chosen by fair dice roll // guaranteed to be random