Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 373 posts

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#161

Post by gb22 »

Hi Scott

1. What do you think is the potential for emergence of a third computing model, apart from classical and quantum, which is sufficiently different in its fundamental computing paradigm from these? Do you believe biological substrates offer opportunity for computing which classical/QC cannot replicate?

2. If we achieve quantum supremacy, who do you think will be the biggest winners and losers, in terms of professional skill set and in terms of business models for private companies? Will physicists become much more influential if their ability to model and deliver new evidence (and thereby theory) and convert them into commercial products is advanced?

3. Would it be fair to say that d-wave machine is more an analog computer than a quantum computer; And do you think there is possibly a class of computing problems that might be better/more efficiently solved by analog computers than digital, and without requiring QC?

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#162

Post by tjhance7 »

ScottAaronson wrote: post #88
SRasch wrote: post #4

You were said to be a skeptic of quantum computing company d wave. Then you started believing and then went back to skepticism. What is your current status, do you think it works? What would you like to see from them? Also, what is your take on Max Tegmark's quantum suicide experiment. Would it work? If yes would that imply that each of us should expect to live a really long time subjectively?

My position on the technical fundamentals never changed much: namely, D-Wave is building devices that could be interesting from various engineering perspectives, but that as far as most of us can tell, are not getting speedups over existing computers that are clearly attributable to quantum computation (as opposed to building special-purpose hardware that's, essentially, very fast at simulating itself). If you want q…

> This is partly because, even assuming you accept the Many-Worlds Interpretation, "your" moral concern and responsibility presumably extend only to those branches that are in "your" future -- you have no contact with the other branches!

Would you say that the only moral way to implement quantum suicide is with a Doomsday Device that would destroy the entire world, thus ensuring your actions won't affect anybody else even in the worlds where you die?

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#163

Post by Zophike1 »

For those wanting to undergraduate research basically in REU in QIT what's your advice for them?,what do they need to take on such an endeavor?,what are researchers looking for in prospective students?, and finally would a researcher take on a student who hasn't had much in terms of coursework but has been teaching themselves ?

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#164

Post by opportune »

jovial_cavalier wrote: post #109
rsln-s wrote: post #62

Hi Scott, Do you think there is a significant chance that quantum will never take off (i.e. there are non-obvious limitations that will prevent quantum architectures like superconducting qubits / trapped ions / quantum dots /... from ever outperforming classical supercomputers)? Related, what in your opinion is the best indicator (or would be the best indicator if demonstrated) of the potential of quantum devices?

I would also like to know the answer to this. Popular culture has seemingly latched onto the phrase "quantum computer" and decided it's the next logical step for computing in general, without ever really defining what it is or thinking about it too clearly.

Well, never is a long time. I guess the more interesting question (to me) is whether engineering challenges will be easily overcome so as to make quantum computer components cheap and ubiquitous, or if there's some innate difficulty to their production that will make them uncommon for everyday personal use.

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#166

Post by logeek »

What are the prime factors of this number? 1847699703211741474306835620200164403018549 3386634101714717857749106516967111612498593 3768430543574458561606154457179405222971773 2524660960646946071249623720442022269756756 6873784275623895087646784409332851574965788 4341508847552829818672645133986336493190808 4671990431874381283363502795470282653297802 9349161558118810498449083195450098483937752 2725705257859194499387007369575568843693381 2779613089230392569695253261620823676490316 036551371447913932347169566988069

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#169

Post by ianai »

martin1975 wrote: post #99
ScottAaronson wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My position on the technical fundamentals never changed much: namely, D-Wave is building devices that could be interesting from various engineering perspectives, but that as far as most of us can tell, are not getting speedups over existing computers that are clearly attributable to quantum computation (as opposed to building special-purpose hardware that's, essentially, very fast at simulating itself). If you want q…

Am I hearing this right, you think the whole multiverse concept is... meta-physics at best?

I think there’s a grave misunderstanding about the multi-universe interpretation. The scales at which the uncertainty principle come into play are vastly small. I think they’re small enough that they don’t summate to larger scale variances. The larger level probably asymptotes to the one reality.

Re: I'm Scott Aaronson, quantum computing/computational complexity researcher. AMA

#170

Post by Koshkin »

logeek wrote: post #166

What are the prime factors of this number? 1847699703211741474306835620200164403018549 3386634101714717857749106516967111612498593 3768430543574458561606154457179405222971773 2524660960646946071249623720442022269756756 6873784275623895087646784409332851574965788 4341508847552829818672645133986336493190808 4671990431874381283363502795470282653297802 9349161558118810498449083195450098483937752 2725705257859194499387007…

This number is prime.
Post reply on HN