Olivier Ezratty

Quantum techologies author ("Understanding Quantum Technologies").

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

@heynavtoor What's fun in that paper is the title which starts with "Delving" while showcasing the growing usage of "delve" in a chart. Was the paper itself written with some LLM?

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

@letonyo This is some amazing work! Congrats to the authors.

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

@condensed_the He’s a stellar speaker. I saw him at the DPG conference in Gottingen in September 2025.

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

@nick_farina @sterilelepton can’t reveal source;
but the rationale is a 50/50 public-private investment which makes sense for a grant

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

@nick_farina @sterilelepton it was a grant only for IBM.

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

@sterilelepton @nick_farina it was a grant and IBM is investing the same amount.

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

@QuantumDom what’s the classical computing comparable?

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

@amarchenkova @projecteleven @apruden08 well if the threat is « store now decrypt later », PQC deployment should start now, not in 3, 5 or 7 years :)

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

@sweis @sejaques It's a good summary. One dimension is usually missing, that is hard to represent in such charts: computing time. How recent progress is related to various space-time trade-offs, and which ones are more fundamental? We must find a way to normalize the shown data.

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

@preskill @RobertHuangHY Hello John, that’s some amazing work indeed! Is it also bringing some computational time advantage? Or rather is a particular space-time overhead trade-off technique circumventing the huge cost of a bucket brigade-based qRAM?

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

@apruden08 the confusion is that these 6,100 atoms have been controlled in space with tweezers but I’ve not seen a trail of quantum gates being implemented with them. depending on how it’s done, it can be difficult to very hard.

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

@apruden08 you could compare functional systems with supported gates. the current 6,100 system has not yet been demonstrated with quantum gates. the record so far is below 300 atoms (QuEra).

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

@apruden08 the reality is a growth of x2 (Google) and x3 (IBM). Condor didn’t work. Had over 2% error rates and no tunable couplers.

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

@kaepora well, we even don’t have 1,000-1,500 qubits with 99.9% fidelities. The record so far is 98 with Quantinuum (and with ma y limitations). no vendor has ever experimented over 1,000 qubits with even 99% errors.

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

@apruden08 It is probably not impossible. It is very hard. The only way to know is to try. And this will take time.

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

Most folks are not looking at the physical qubits assumptions, which are 99.9% fidelities for all ops (including 2 qubits gate & readout) at scale. Nobody has done that with cold atoms even at small scale. So, with 20K or 100K atoms, they got some work on their plate for a while!

[nic carter @nic_carter]

Scott Aaronson on the Google and the Caltech papers:

> When you put both [papers] together, Bitcoin signatures for example certainly look vulnerable to quantum attack earlier than was previously known!  In particular, the Caltech group estimates that a mere 25,000 physical qubits might suffice for this, where a year ago the best estimates were in the millions. How much time will this save — maybe a year?  Subtracting, of course, off a number of years that no one knows.

> In any case, these results provide an even stronger impetus for people to upgrade now to quantum-resistant cryptography.  They—meaning you, if relevant—should really get on that!

Scott is probably the best-known quantum computing educator and academic and is historically a skeptic of aggressive quantum timelines.

Maybe some of you should start to pay attention?

https://t.co/cQA3VVksh1

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

@Cat_States @QuantumDom it's "up to 99.86(4)% 2Q gate", not average... !

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

@conordeegan The missing question in this story is: how far did we progress meanwhile with the number of operational physical qubits (with 99.9% operations fidelities which is the assumption in most of these papers)?

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

@amarchenkova @American_Binary Anastasia, the 8 hours was for breaking RSA with Shor integer factoring, here the 9 minutes are for breaking elliptic curves with Shor dlog algorithm (with 500K sc qubits with 99.9% fidelities). these are different things.

[Olivier Ezratty @olivez]

@nick_farina particularly in the USA, with 6 industry vendors now!