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

Google Quantum AI

quantumai.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 210 posts

Re: Google Quantum AI

#31

Post by iaseiadit »

fooker wrote: post #15

The fact this prize exists is admitting that no one has figured out a use for quantum computers. I have heard this mentioned several times in the last decade or so : "The only thing a quantum computer definitively does better than a classical computer is simulating a quantum computer." Whether this capability is useful is up in the air. Note that in practice, classical computers are going to be better at factoring nu…

There have been XPRIZE competitions for vehicle efficiency, oil spill technology, more efficient rockets, health sensors, AI systems, genomics, etc.

Whether or not quantum computers have practical applications, the prize itself is not evidence of that.

Re: Google Quantum AI

#32

Post by pyinstallwoes »

fooker wrote: post #15

The fact this prize exists is admitting that no one has figured out a use for quantum computers. I have heard this mentioned several times in the last decade or so : "The only thing a quantum computer definitively does better than a classical computer is simulating a quantum computer." Whether this capability is useful is up in the air. Note that in practice, classical computers are going to be better at factoring nu…

Also hilariously they mark stage 3 as "useful quantum computation" as in, none has happened yet. Because, no quantum computer actually exists yet.

Re: Google Quantum AI

#33

Post by pyinstallwoes »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #26
fooker wrote: post #15

The fact this prize exists is admitting that no one has figured out a use for quantum computers. I have heard this mentioned several times in the last decade or so : "The only thing a quantum computer definitively does better than a classical computer is simulating a quantum computer." Whether this capability is useful is up in the air. Note that in practice, classical computers are going to be better at factoring nu…

Wouldn't the D-Wave kinda-but-not-really quantum computer that came out a decade ago be ideal for AI? Annealing sounds like exactly the kind of problem that needs to be solved for ML training?

[flagged]

Re: Google Quantum AI

#35

Post by leononame »

fooker wrote: post #22
becquerel wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Einstein did not have GPS in mind when he was developing his theories of relativity.

Survivorship bias. There is a lot more science that has not panned out. I'm not saying quantum computing won't pan out, but if it has to there's some fundamental piece that is missing so far. In contrast this effort is trying to imagine and monetize GPS before relativity is discovered.

That's not the point. The point is that a lot of discoveries and inventions wouldn't have happened if it weren't for researching just for curiosity's sake. Research results will often be useless for product development or capitalism in general. However, focusing research on achieving specific goals only might actually take you further away from your goals. You can't focus on something you don't know exists, you have to discover it first.

Maybe, when we have quantum computers, one nerd makes an accidental discovery that enables us to build a room temperature superconductor, and maybe not. But if we don't let people research freely what they're interested in and only things that will pan out, we're going to lose out on a lot of things.

Re: Google Quantum AI

#37

Post by fooker »

leononame wrote: post #35
fooker wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Survivorship bias. There is a lot more science that has not panned out. I'm not saying quantum computing won't pan out, but if it has to there's some fundamental piece that is missing so far. In contrast this effort is trying to imagine and monetize GPS before relativity is discovered.

That's not the point. The point is that a lot of discoveries and inventions wouldn't have happened if it weren't for researching just for curiosity's sake. Research results will often be useless for product development or capitalism in general. However, focusing research on achieving specific goals only might actually take you further away from your goals. You can't focus on something you don't know exists, you have…

I agree.

I didn't say quantum computing research is useless.

My point is that we are not at stage that we can offer a small prize and find monetizable uses for it.

Fundamental research requires a lot more funding than this.

Re: Google Quantum AI

#38

Post by takeda »

anonylizard wrote: post #2

How is this related to AI in any way? Is it just branded as AI to get some share of that sweet AI money (Probably Google only allows funding new projects if they are AI related at this point)

Additional Investment

Re: Google Quantum AI

#39

Post by [deleted] »

fooker wrote: post #15

The fact this prize exists is admitting that no one has figured out a use for quantum computers. I have heard this mentioned several times in the last decade or so : "The only thing a quantum computer definitively does better than a classical computer is simulating a quantum computer." Whether this capability is useful is up in the air. Note that in practice, classical computers are going to be better at factoring nu…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN