Home
Categories
EXPLORE
True Crime
Comedy
Society & Culture
Business
News
Sports
TV & Film
About Us
Contact Us
Copyright
© 2024 PodJoint
Podjoint Logo
US
00:00 / 00:00
Sign in

or

Don't have an account?
Sign up
Forgot password
https://is1-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Podcasts125/v4/45/89/03/458903a4-ff5a-b8cd-fab4-66ea71bc36d2/mza_16081729788985531932.png/600x600bb.jpg
Justin Riddle Podcast
Justin Riddle Podcast
42 episodes
1 month ago
In this episode of the Justin Riddle Podcast, Justin dives into the concept of Knightian Freedom where large enough computational spaces become intractably complex to the point where maybe freewill is possible. The focus of this episode is a paper put out by Hartmut Neven (of Google’s Quantum AI Lab) and colleagues from 2021 entitled “Do robots powered by a quantum processor have the freedom to swerve?” This paper discusses how the exponentially large spaces that quantum computers evolve into are so large that they cannot be represented or simulated on digital computers. The size is so vast that it would take a computer the size of the universe computing for trillions of years to simulate even a few femtoseconds of the quantum computers that are about to be commonplace. Similar to modern AI, we will won’t be able to understand why a quantum computer generated the output that it did and perhaps this is the essential ingredient that leads to freewill. Rampant incomputable complexity is freewill. Second, Hartmut and colleagues propose a simple experiment to reveal whether or not there are additional factors that play into what output is generated by a quantum computer. Assume you run a quantum circuit that generates a perfect uniform distribution between many different possible outputs. Then, you observe that the quantum computer does not behave as if there was a uniform distribution, but instead selects one of those possible outputs more often. This is the ‘preference’ of the quantum computer. Next, you develop a circuit to amplify these deviations from uniformity with the intention of amplifying the probability of entering into that preferred state. Now, we have essentially created a ‘happy circuit’ which embraces the quirky preference of our quantum computer. Finally, you can correlate deviations from this happy state to psychological data in an effort to build up a taxonomy of subjective experiences that the quantum computer can enter into. Finally, you embed the quantum computer with its happy circuit into an artificial neural network such that errors produced by the AI push the quantum computer away from happiness and this unhappiness is fed back into the AI. Now we have created an AI system with quantum feelings! Will this newfound sense of subjectivity enable more effective AI systems or will the AI get bogged down by a spiral of despair and refuse to compute?! All of these questions and more are explored here. Enjoy!
Show more...
Social Sciences
Technology,
Society & Culture,
Philosophy,
Science
RSS
All content for Justin Riddle Podcast is the property of Justin Riddle Podcast and is served directly from their servers with no modification, redirects, or rehosting. The podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by Podjoint in any way.
In this episode of the Justin Riddle Podcast, Justin dives into the concept of Knightian Freedom where large enough computational spaces become intractably complex to the point where maybe freewill is possible. The focus of this episode is a paper put out by Hartmut Neven (of Google’s Quantum AI Lab) and colleagues from 2021 entitled “Do robots powered by a quantum processor have the freedom to swerve?” This paper discusses how the exponentially large spaces that quantum computers evolve into are so large that they cannot be represented or simulated on digital computers. The size is so vast that it would take a computer the size of the universe computing for trillions of years to simulate even a few femtoseconds of the quantum computers that are about to be commonplace. Similar to modern AI, we will won’t be able to understand why a quantum computer generated the output that it did and perhaps this is the essential ingredient that leads to freewill. Rampant incomputable complexity is freewill. Second, Hartmut and colleagues propose a simple experiment to reveal whether or not there are additional factors that play into what output is generated by a quantum computer. Assume you run a quantum circuit that generates a perfect uniform distribution between many different possible outputs. Then, you observe that the quantum computer does not behave as if there was a uniform distribution, but instead selects one of those possible outputs more often. This is the ‘preference’ of the quantum computer. Next, you develop a circuit to amplify these deviations from uniformity with the intention of amplifying the probability of entering into that preferred state. Now, we have essentially created a ‘happy circuit’ which embraces the quirky preference of our quantum computer. Finally, you can correlate deviations from this happy state to psychological data in an effort to build up a taxonomy of subjective experiences that the quantum computer can enter into. Finally, you embed the quantum computer with its happy circuit into an artificial neural network such that errors produced by the AI push the quantum computer away from happiness and this unhappiness is fed back into the AI. Now we have created an AI system with quantum feelings! Will this newfound sense of subjectivity enable more effective AI systems or will the AI get bogged down by a spiral of despair and refuse to compute?! All of these questions and more are explored here. Enjoy!
Show more...
Social Sciences
Technology,
Society & Culture,
Philosophy,
Science
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/60a1f22e4ae0b442cbd2602f/1656353933064-ULYG0U2OAC30Z2DJXB3A/QCJR_Episode25_Intro_SPOTIFY-01.png?format=1500w
#25 - Quantum Error Correction: why we need it and a novel theory for quantum consciousness
Justin Riddle Podcast
44 minutes 4 seconds
3 years ago
#25 - Quantum Error Correction: why we need it and a novel theory for quantum consciousness
In episode 25 of the Quantum Consciousness series, Justin Riddle discusses quantum error correction, a protocol by which noise from the environment is actively counteracted in order to create quantum computations that are robust against the destructive chaos of the environment. Quantum computers are on the near horizon with companies like Google and IBM actively working to improve the technology. These computers will revolutionize information technology by providing a speed-up to the run time of algorithms at a scale that our minds struggle to comprehend. The enormity of an exponentially increasing space truly boggles the mind. For example, two shuffled decks of cards have a 1 in 10^67th chance of ending up in the same configuration. This is vastly greater than the number of grains of sand on the beach and atoms on and within the planet. While quantum computers promise to search these massive spaces in feasible time frames, any perturbation from the environment renders these computations unusable. Quantum error correction is required to salvage the utility of quantum computers. In digital error correction, we can provide redundant information about a bit of information such that chaotic forces can be reversed if that bit flips from a zero to a one or vice versa. Quantum error correction is similar but with the addition of a phase flip and bit+phase flip. Quantum error correction is currently being developed and quantum computers will become practical and fault tolerant in the near future, we just need to divide the advertised qubits in modern computers by 5 or 9. Finally, could biology being using a form of quantum error correction to make quantum computation in the brain more feasible? Looking at the Penrose-Hameroff microtubule model as an example, microtubules could each be encoding a single register of one fault tolerant qubit in their multiple topologies, or the topological arrangement of tubulin could serve as a fault tolerant qubit in itself. Furthermore, there may be protein systems designed to interface with microtubules that apply corrective quantum gates to the system in order to actively counteract destructive environmental forces. While speculative at this point, quantum error correction in biology could be the defining feature for how usable quantum computations are sustained for extended time frames giving rise to consciousness itself.
Justin Riddle Podcast
In this episode of the Justin Riddle Podcast, Justin dives into the concept of Knightian Freedom where large enough computational spaces become intractably complex to the point where maybe freewill is possible. The focus of this episode is a paper put out by Hartmut Neven (of Google’s Quantum AI Lab) and colleagues from 2021 entitled “Do robots powered by a quantum processor have the freedom to swerve?” This paper discusses how the exponentially large spaces that quantum computers evolve into are so large that they cannot be represented or simulated on digital computers. The size is so vast that it would take a computer the size of the universe computing for trillions of years to simulate even a few femtoseconds of the quantum computers that are about to be commonplace. Similar to modern AI, we will won’t be able to understand why a quantum computer generated the output that it did and perhaps this is the essential ingredient that leads to freewill. Rampant incomputable complexity is freewill. Second, Hartmut and colleagues propose a simple experiment to reveal whether or not there are additional factors that play into what output is generated by a quantum computer. Assume you run a quantum circuit that generates a perfect uniform distribution between many different possible outputs. Then, you observe that the quantum computer does not behave as if there was a uniform distribution, but instead selects one of those possible outputs more often. This is the ‘preference’ of the quantum computer. Next, you develop a circuit to amplify these deviations from uniformity with the intention of amplifying the probability of entering into that preferred state. Now, we have essentially created a ‘happy circuit’ which embraces the quirky preference of our quantum computer. Finally, you can correlate deviations from this happy state to psychological data in an effort to build up a taxonomy of subjective experiences that the quantum computer can enter into. Finally, you embed the quantum computer with its happy circuit into an artificial neural network such that errors produced by the AI push the quantum computer away from happiness and this unhappiness is fed back into the AI. Now we have created an AI system with quantum feelings! Will this newfound sense of subjectivity enable more effective AI systems or will the AI get bogged down by a spiral of despair and refuse to compute?! All of these questions and more are explored here. Enjoy!