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

Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 237 posts

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#161

Post by Retric »

shawabawa3 wrote: post #155
deepburner wrote: post #137

Quantum Computing/Information researcher here. This article is largely garbage, the original (~2 month old) paper is surprisingly readable [0] and I suggest you to check it out. Here's my $0.02: The efforts of the Google team is commendable in that they're trying to squeeze as much out of their noisy systems as possible until error correction is here (they need to, to justify their existence after all) and they are a…

> Maybe someone can tell me what fast prime factorization is good for besides breaking encryption. Maybe someone can tell me what alchemy is good for besides turning lead into gold?

Prime factorization only breaks a subset of crypto algorithms, it’s not that useful or game changing alone.

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#162

Post by kouru225 »

return_to_monke wrote: post #138
kouru225 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government institutions have already been instructed to start using quantum computer safe encryption algorithms. Internationally, governments have been storing tons of encrypted data that they can’t currently decrypt because they expect to be able to decrypt it soon using quantum computers. There are already quantum computer safe encryption algorithms that have been released to the public. I don’t know exactly how th…

sha256 is a hash algo. you probably meant something else?

Yea. I think maybe this is what happens when I read something I don’t fully understand but want to share the info. I think they’re switching their encryption algorithms and also they were looking into how quantum computing affects SHA256. Would have to find the article I was reading.

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#163

Post by klyrs »

deepburner wrote: post #137

Quantum Computing/Information researcher here. This article is largely garbage, the original (~2 month old) paper is surprisingly readable [0] and I suggest you to check it out. Here's my $0.02: The efforts of the Google team is commendable in that they're trying to squeeze as much out of their noisy systems as possible until error correction is here (they need to, to justify their existence after all) and they are a…

> Maybe someone can tell me what fast prime factorization is good for besides breaking encryption.

That untapped market of trillionaire hobby number theorists?

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#164

Post by NooneAtAll3 »

shawabawa3 wrote: post #155
deepburner wrote: post #137

Quantum Computing/Information researcher here. This article is largely garbage, the original (~2 month old) paper is surprisingly readable [0] and I suggest you to check it out. Here's my $0.02: The efforts of the Google team is commendable in that they're trying to squeeze as much out of their noisy systems as possible until error correction is here (they need to, to justify their existence after all) and they are a…

> Maybe someone can tell me what fast prime factorization is good for besides breaking encryption. Maybe someone can tell me what alchemy is good for besides turning lead into gold?

considering that the world is transitioning to post-quantum crypto... everyone moved from gold to digital currencies, pretty much

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#165

Post by imchillyb »

deepburner wrote: post #137

Quantum Computing/Information researcher here. This article is largely garbage, the original (~2 month old) paper is surprisingly readable [0] and I suggest you to check it out. Here's my $0.02: The efforts of the Google team is commendable in that they're trying to squeeze as much out of their noisy systems as possible until error correction is here (they need to, to justify their existence after all) and they are a…

> I don't see anything useful coming out until error correction and number of qubits are improved many orders of magnitude to have fault tolerant QC.

Error correction and control are vital for any system to be reliable.

Thankfully the ability to run simultaneously and vet against multiple outputs should overcome this fault for a time.

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#166

Post by mistermann »

flangola7 wrote: post #90
mistermann wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, generate reality for one. It's not a trivial detail, but it tends to be dismissed or taken for granted (or downvoted lol). Someone may venture into this territory some day, and perhaps that someone will find some travelling companions to make the journey more exciting and productive....time will tell!

Generate reality? I am not crystal clear on what you're talking about. Quantum computers are still just computers, not magical replicators from Star Trek.

I'm talking about the mind's ability to generate what "is", and "is not". It is a curso no doubt, but it is also sometimes a blessing. But usually it runs unnoticed (or even: denied) in the background, duffing things up.

And when it gets noticed, sometimes really weird things happen.

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#167

Post by imchillyb »

wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #121
marricks wrote: post #10

> He said: “This is a very nice demonstration of quantum advantage. While a great achievement academically, the algorithm used does not really have real world practical applications, though. > “We really must get to utility quantum computing – an era where quantum computers with many thousand qubits actually begin to deliver value to society in a way that classical computers never will be able to.” This seems to be t…

Quantum computing feels like nucleair fusion. Been hearing about how its going to change the world since I was kid.

Quantum computing has been just as sexy a topic as stable fusion.

Those were/are goalposts. We've never actually /seen/ the goal though, and the posts are a collective hallucination. It IS a pretty nice hallucination though.

Since we as a species don't quite understand quantum interactions, it could be quite some time before we can build ordered and predictable systems out of those interactions.

It could take days/weeks/months/years/decades/millennium... who knows? The fun is in watching and playing.

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#168

Post by mistermann »

weard_beard wrote: post #64
mistermann wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, generate reality for one. It's not a trivial detail, but it tends to be dismissed or taken for granted (or downvoted lol). Someone may venture into this territory some day, and perhaps that someone will find some travelling companions to make the journey more exciting and productive....time will tell!

The trick is you can only flip as yet unobserved bits. If we know the asteroid is coming we can't delete it.

Some bits can even be flipped in broad daylight while everyone's watching. One of the most popular ways to flip bits is by telling stories in which the bits have been flipped.

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#169

Post by refulgentis »

nier wrote: post #154
refulgentis wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an exhaustive covering: https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec14.html I would have picked it up in bits and pieces from blogs over years, here's an attempt to render that useful that is surely nitpickable: TL;DR: there's two types of caring about Google's claims of quantum supremacy: 1. HN tends to assume these articles are about breakthrough in _product usefulness_ and then tsk tsk about lack of impact.…

From the article linked by parent: «To summarize, I think that arguing with skeptics is not only amusing but extremely useful. It could be that quantum computing is impossible for some fundamental reason. So far, though, I haven't seen an argument that's engaged me in a really nontrivial way.» «Very little of what we do in theoretical computer science is directly connected to a practical application. That's just not…

This shouldn't leave anyone with the impression they are cranks. Scott's claim in this lecture is he hasn't yet found making a counter argument "really nontrivial"

To wit, the article names Leonid Levin and Oded Goldreich as the primary skeptics.

Leonid has 10K citations, 2012 Knuth Prize, 37 h-index.

Oded has 63K citations, 2017 Knuth Prize, 95 h-index.

What Scott Aaronson considers "really nontrivial" is far beyond our comprehension, and he's making a claim about synthesizing an counterargument, not settling the entire argument.

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#170

Post by imchillyb »

marricks wrote: post #132
hedora wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in fairness, I could say the same about solar, improved batteries, etc.

> solar, improved batteries Neither of those sounded as sexy (i.e hyped) to me a nuclear fusion and quantum computers.

> solar, improved batteries

>> Neither of those sounded as sexy (i.e hyped) to me a nuclear fusion and quantum computers.

Breaking News: The Gates Foundation has actually deployed a product -- Solary!

Meet Solary, The Gates Foundation replacement for salaries and a new way to power your entire home. This $1,000 (price pending review) device can provide a multi-family, multi-story, dwelling with power for 100 years. The software called Solary GoFY (possibly a subscription service) serves as a full and complete monitoring solution for the premises!

--

See, solar can be sexy!

Post reply on HN