Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

341–350 of 373 posts

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

#341

Hi Scott - What was the best part/most favorite thing about your sabbatical? Can you explain why Forrelation is a guiding light for quantum deep learning these days? As a bonus - it would be nice to see a walkthrough - commentary of the recent oracle separation proof of Tal and Raz and how they used Fourier transforms specifically.

My favorite part of my sabbatical in Tel Aviv was having some actual time to do research. My second-favorite part was the hummus.

Forrelation is not a “guiding light for quantum deep learning.” I’m not even sure if there’s such a thing as “quantum deep learning” that’s sufficiently well-developed to deserve the name. You can use Forrelation as a separating example for some other quantum learning problems, e.g. k-means clustering, but so far that mostly just shows that you can artifically shoehorn an exponential quantum speedup into those tasks, rather than that the tasks will give us useful quantum speedups in “real life.”

In the Forrelation problem, I conjecture that the only thing that really matters about the Fourier transform is that it’s a unitary matrix all of whose entries have small absolute values. As such, it lets you relate two Boolean functions in a way that a quantum computer can notice, but that’s extremely “global” in nature and doesn’t show up locally. Raz and Tal may have used some additional technical properties of Forrelation in their proof (now that I write that, I’m actually not sure—I’ll need to check!). But if they did, then I conjecture that another proof could avoid the use of those properties.

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

#342

Hello! Could you give an overview of the proceedings of your job as a researcher in quantum computing? For instance, how do you start your day job, what do you do during the day (how exactly do you do research,) how do you end your day, etc...

While I was on sabbatical:

7am - Wake up, eat breakfast, check email, help get daughter ready and walk her to school

9am - Back to sleep

2pm - Wake up again, shower, eat lunch, check email. Possibly coffee with friend or colleague.

4pm - Time to pick daughter up again!

4-6pm - Play with kids, eat more, check email

6-8pm - Read news and social media, get depressed

8-9:30pm - Help get kids ready for bed

9:30pm-4am: NOW it’s time to do some research!!! Tools: pen, paper, sofa, LaTeX editor, and sometimes web browser to look up papers (but this last tool is extremely dangerous and can lead to procrastination)

4am - Collapse

Being back in Austin and teaching will severely affect the above hours. But in any case, it’s not like I consciously decided on them, as part of some plan to maximize productivity (!!) - this is just what I fall into when I don’t have other obligations.

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

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Since you obviously know this subject, what are the best current results in the direction of inducing the rules of chess from played games? To be honest, I don't think there's much work on inducing the rules of chess, in particular. It's probably considered a) easy enough to do by hand and b) too hard to machine-learn. >> On further thought, we should distinguish two problems: (1) - Yep. The most likely approach w…

Dah. Hang on, what am I talking about- chess has a finite number of moves so the "language" is finite. That means it's learnable in polynomial time, from finite examples ... in principle :)

Right, but even if chess were infinite, we could still imagine an algorithm that would output the smallest explicit rule set that was consistent with all the games it had seen so far, and that would quickly (though how quickly?) converge on the correct rules in the case of chess, even if it would be up against undecidability when trying to do the same thing for a completely arbitrary game.

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

#344
post #340

I'm halfway through the first chapter of Neilsen and Chuang's book. I'm enjoying reading about the subject and am at the quantum parallelism part. Can you explain why Grover's algorithm has a runtime of root N? It seems like the runtime should be log2(n) because of exponential qubits or 1 because there must be a way for all the qubits to interfere. Also, What resources do you reccomend for self study? Are there quant…

There is a Bay Area Quantum Computing meetup (I'm one of the organizers!) https://www.meetup.com/Bay-Area-Quantum-Computing-Meetup/ Next one will likely be at the end of July. Hope to see you there!

Looks like I went to the Bloomberg one. Was both really over my head and very fascinating.

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

#345

I'm halfway through the first chapter of Neilsen and Chuang's book. I'm enjoying reading about the subject and am at the quantum parallelism part. Can you explain why Grover's algorithm has a runtime of root N? It seems like the runtime should be log2(n) because of exponential qubits or 1 because there must be a way for all the qubits to interfere. Also, What resources do you reccomend for self study? Are there quant…

The reason why the running time of Grover’s algorithm involves sqrt(n) has to do with the Pythagorean theorem—or if you like, the fact that quantum mechanics is based on the 2-norm, in contrast to classical probability theory which is based on the 1-norm. Classically, each time you pick one item out of N to query, you can add ~1/N probability to the marked item—so the probability of having found the marked item after…

That makes some sense with the extra dimension providing more space to store information about all the information. I appreciate the detailed response with some jumping off points. Thank you!

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

#346

Does the recent result on BQP not being in PH relative to an oracle do anything to your priors about the power of quantum computers relative to classical computers? If you had to distill why that oracle separation works, what would you say is the main trick from the perspective of "where does the power of quantum computers come from"?

Honestly, almost all of the technical innovation in this breakthrough had to do with classical circuit complexity—-once you know my Forrelation problem, there’s almost no further input you need about quantum computation. (Well, a slight amount, since Raz and Tal had to modify Forrelation a bit to get their proof to go through.)

For an attempt at a popular summary of what the circuit lower bound innovations consisted of, see my blog post:

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3827

or, of course, their paper.

No, this doesn’t much change my priors about the power of quantum computation—for one thing, because we all (or at least I :-) ) were already pretty damn confident that Forrelation was not in PH. On the other hand, I was not expecting that the separation could be proved right now—certainly, not without first proving some weaker separations like BQP vs. AM.

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

#347
post #323
post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I obviously don't think so, and all you've done is state the opposite claim.

What do you think the word "physics" means ?

Good question. I'm willing to bet you have a different idea to me. How about you tell me what you think. I'm a professional physicist with a relatively mainstream view. But i couldn't give a comprehensive definition in the time I'm willing to take to write this comment. But i promise to write one if you do.

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

#348

Will non-linear quantum computers ever be possible? If so, how would they be made, and what would programming them be like? Do we still model non-linear states with vectors and transformations with unitary matrices?

If you mean, quantum computers that would exploit a nonlinear term in the Schrödinger equation to solve NP-complete and even harder problems in polynomial time (as studied by Abrams and Lloyd in 1998), then the central problem is that I don’t believe such a nonlinear term exists. Experimental searches have put more and more severe upper bounds on its size, if it did exist. But the bigger problem is that such a term would completely break the structure of quantum mechanics, in even more “basic” ways than by making NP-complete problems easy. For example, it would genetically lead to faster-than-light communication and to violations of the uncertainty principle. So while it’s interesting to think about, and even worth searching for just in case, it almost certainly belongs to the category of “what if?” physics.

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

#349

Given that observing the state of a qubit changes it, and (I guess) that changes all entangled qubits, what methodology is used to read out the result of a quantum computer's calculation?

When the quantum computation is finished, you suck it up and you measure. The entire point of the quantum algorithm was to set things up in such a way that, even as the measurement destroys the superposition state, the right answer is observed with a high probability (since you used constructive and destructive interference to boost its amplitude, while suppressing the amplitudes of the wrong answers).

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

#350
post #64

Do you think that humanity is well placed to be responsible wielders of quantum computing as a tool, and what do you feel your role (as a scientist with a large public following) is in shaping those future perceptions of responsibility?

No, I don’t think humanity is well placed to be responsible wielders of quantum computing. But the thing is, we’re even less well-placed to be responsible wielders of nuclear weapons, or climate-destroying combustion engines, or probably even guns or fire! :-) So with all the more dangerous technologies out there, it would be weird to fret about quantum computers of all things: something that seems unlikely to do much harm (at least if we take care to upgrade our crypto), and that might even do significant good for the world, for example if quantum simulation lets us design more efficient batteries and solar cells.
Post reply on HN