Live data from Hacker News

D-Wave: Truth finally starts to emerge

scottaaronson.com

31–40 of 97 posts

Re: D-Wave: Truth finally starts to emerge

#31
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could write many books on this subject. What exactly did you not understand?

I would just like a recap of the story for a layman. You know the sort of thing one would do to explain a computer system to his mother. The sort of thing Brian Greene does to explain string theory to the masses.

D-Wave is trying to make use of the quantum properties of matter in order to solve a particular kind of problem. They want to find the ground state (lowest energy) configuration of spins (a non-classical degree of freedom) in a 2D lattice composed of N atoms. Each atom is allowed to interact with its neighbors obeying rules that are defined by the way the computer is built.

They're essentially setting up a number of "qubits" (which is not related to "binary digit" other than they're both units of information) to naturally converge on the lowest energy state. All the qubits need to be entangled (fundamentally linked) in order for the system to work. This is a necessary but insufficient condition for quantum efficiency gains, which is the point Mr. Aaronson is making. The computer is not, according to recent evidence, providing computational gains. He then goes into the details, which you might or might not be interested in.

If you have other questions, please ask. I'm not an expert, but I understand his argument.

Re: D-Wave: Truth finally starts to emerge

#32
post #2

Holy Quantum Annealing Qubits Batman! That article was not for the faint of geek.

I understand some of the words, but the article itself seems to me as ancient Greek. Can someone explain to me what the hell the whole story is about?

It's fairly simple

When the Matrix was written the Lisp source code could not hope to compute the position of every quantum particle in the simulated universe in real time. So entanglement was invented as a means of linking quanta that were outside of each others relativistic cause-effect bubble thus reducing the number of actual positional calculations needed across the universe to a manageable amount.

However the perl code used to stich it altogether allowed entanglement in some cases within relativistic reach. The hope is that this will allow us to force a buffer overflow and introduce our own qubits to be processed on the Matrix substrate.

This will eventually lead to a sex party in a cave hundreds of miles below the surface. No quantum mechanics professors or students will be invited to the party

HTH

Re: D-Wave: Truth finally starts to emerge

#34
It seems to me that all the hyperbole is about raised expectations. Hell, the fact they can even get something like this to work, and are able to determine (somewhat) that it is working the way they intended is enough to get me excited. I don't care if the QC they built performs faster or slower than a classical algorithm, because that stuff will simply come with time as we understand more about how QC works. With classical computers, we had several decades of knowledge about how electromagnetism worked - it was easily observable, and applying those principles to a complex switching system (already implemented by some mechanical computers at the time) was relatively straightforward, at least from a physical standpoint. With QC, it seems to me (I don't really know more about than anyone else here) that we are making all sorts of theoretical discoveries as well as attempting to build a computer with those discoveries at the same time. So D-wave is basically the modern equivalent of Tesla and Turing, etc. all wrapped up into one big package. So the fact that this stuff is turning out not to be a complete fairytale is more than enough to get me excited.

Re: D-Wave: Truth finally starts to emerge

#35
post #27

I like that he addresses that his main fear that, if D-Wave does not succeed after riding the marketing hype-machine, a "QC Winter" would likely happen, not unlike the "AI Winter" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter ) that occurred in the late 80's. The AI Winter was caused by a huge amount of over hyped claims and promises by the companies taking part which were never (and could never be) met, leading to the ev…

AI had huge successes though the 80's an early 90's despite the two "AI Winters". However, people generally stop calling something AI once it starts to work. Consider path-finding sometimes it's AI and sometimes not. It's true there was a shifts in research funding (1974–80 and 1987–93) but plenty of things that where under the AI umbrella had moved on to their own separate and a lot of crap that was never going to work was cut.

Re: D-Wave: Truth finally starts to emerge

#36
post #2

Holy Quantum Annealing Qubits Batman! That article was not for the faint of geek.

I understand some of the words, but the article itself seems to me as ancient Greek. Can someone explain to me what the hell the whole story is about?

BACKGROUND: Quantum computing

If you are able to get substantial numbers of "quantum bits" to stay entangled with one another, and hence behave in all those counterintuitive ways quantum things do, then you can (in principle) use the resulting machinery to perform some kinds of computations faster than any "conventional" computer can do them.

Making that actually happen is an enormous engineering challenge. No one's been able to do it with more than a very few bits, yet.

If they did, it would be a big deal: in particular, something called Shor's algorithm allows you (in principle) to factorize numbers efficiently on a quantum computer, and a big enough quantum computer would effectively break RSA encryption. As an indication of the progress that's been made in practical quantum computation: the first ever demonstration of Shor's algorithm in practice was in 2001 when some researchers at IBM managed to use it to find that 15 = 3x5; there was a major breakthrough in 2011, when the algorithm was used to find that 21 = 3x7.

Some other varieties of public-key encryption are not, so far as anyone currently knows, broken once we have quantum computers. But exactly what quantum computers are capable of is a very open question.

BACKGROUND: D-Wave

There's a company called D-Wave that, for years now, has been touting what they claim is a quantum computer of an unconventional design, very different from what most quantum computing researchers have been trying to do (or trying to analyse the capabilities of). They have claimed that their machine works with hundreds of (qu)bits, whereas no one else is using more than, say, ten. They have attracted a lot of media attention and a lot of money.

(Their machine allegedly does something called "adiabatic quantum computing", which somewhat resembles the non-quantum optimization process called simulated annealing. It may or may not actually be more powerful than simulated annealing.)

Until very recently, D-Wave (despite their great media success) had provided no evidence at all that their machine actually does anything "genuinely quantum", or that it is able to do anything that can't be done just as well with conventional classical computers costing much, much less than their machine.

Scott Aaronson (a young but already eminent researcher in the theory of quantum computation) has long been a leading critic of D-Wave, countering their hype (and that of those in the media who like their story) with patient skepticism and careful analysis.

A couple of years ago, D-Wave (for the first time) offered some actual evidence for actual quantum effects having some actual contribution to the behaviour of their machine. Aaronson's post about this -- http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=639 -- said (among other things) "I hereby announce my retirement as Chief D-Wave Skeptic".

WHAT'S GOING ON NOW

In the last few days there have been breathless reports in the media about how D-Wave's machine has been found to be thousands of times faster (at solving a single particular problem, the one it was designed to solve) than conventional computers. These reports have been discussed here on HN, too.

So Aaronson is back to debunking D-Wave hype. First, though, the good news: it does appear that this latest work gives some evidence that D-Wave's machine is genuinely doing something quantum. Specifically, some researchers have taken the same kind of problems that D-Wave's machine solves, and compared the performance of D-Wave's machine with (1) an algorithm called "quantum Monte Carlo", which is approximately a simulation (on conventional classical computers) of the particular quantum thing it's alleged to be doing and (2) a conventional computer doing ordinary simulated annealing. They found that the performance characteristics -- which problems are easier to solve and which harder, and by how much -- match up well between D-Wave's machine and the simulation of the quantum process it's meant to be an implementation of, whereas classical simulated annealing doesn't match at all well. So it does seem pretty likely that D-Wave's machine is doing roughly what D-Wave say it is, and that this truly is a quantum effect. Yay!

The bad news, part 1: This particular quantum phenomenon turns out to be one that can be efficiently and accurately simulated using ordinary classical computers. In other words, in so far as D-Wave's machine is really doing that, it offers no prospect of a more-than-constant-factor speedup relative to conventional, "non-quantum" digital computers. (The quotation marks are because actually semiconductors, as used in all integrated circuits, are fundamentally quantum devices. But they don't exploit quantum coherence in the sort of way quantum computers do.)

The bad news, part 2: At the same time as one researcher was comparing D-Wave's machine against a bunch of classical optimization algorithms and finding that D-Wave's machine performs much better, another researcher was comparing it against a different classical optimization algorithm, namely (you guessed it) simulated annealing -- and finding that simulated annealing actually solves the problems just as well as D-Wave's machine, but much faster and on cheaper hardware.

CONCLUSION

(For the avoidance of doubt, this is my summary of what Aaronson says; I think he is almost certainly right because he demonstrably knows his stuff, but I'm in no position to give any endorsement beyond that.)

D-Wave do seem to have a genuine quantum device. However, it doesn't seem to be a quantum computer in the sense of something that exploits quantum effects to do computation faster than a classical device can do by more than a constant factor, and the recent hype about their machine is very misleading.

[EDITED to fix a goof where I missed out half a sentence.]

Re: D-Wave: Truth finally starts to emerge

#37
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand some of the words, but the article itself seems to me as ancient Greek. Can someone explain to me what the hell the whole story is about?

BACKGROUND: Quantum computing If you are able to get substantial numbers of "quantum bits" to stay entangled with one another, and hence behave in all those counterintuitive ways quantum things do, then you can (in principle) use the resulting machinery to perform some kinds of computations faster than any "conventional" computer can do them. Making that actually happen is an enormous engineering challenge. No one's…

This was a great summary - thank you.

Re: D-Wave: Truth finally starts to emerge

#38

I'm glad there are people who understand these things. I hope some day when the field of quantum computing congeals a bit more us mere mortals can begin to understand it as well.

I know pretty much nothing of the physics and very little of the logic, but having listened to a few talks from the CS side of the field, it mostly looks like a combination of:

- Different hardware. This boils down to different gates/primitive operations, ala [1]. There are currently lots of different proposed methods of how to build the hardware, but I don't know that much about how the physical circuits in a traditional computer work, either.

- Different algorithms. See e.g. Shor's [2]. I think there are only one or two others that have been proven to be more efficiently solvable by quantum means, so a lot more work needs to be done in this area.

The field is in its extreme infancy, and I think it will always be more challenging to program quantum computers by a fairly wide margin.

[1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gate

[2] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shors_algorithm

Re: D-Wave: Truth finally starts to emerge

#39

I'm glad there are people who understand these things. I hope some day when the field of quantum computing congeals a bit more us mere mortals can begin to understand it as well.

Yeah, I felt smart until I read this. Now I know how all those "business people" feel in meetings with their devs.

Part of the curse of being in technology (I'm an EE who does CS) is that its very hard to ever be surprised. Most of the "new" stuff you see touted, you know right away how its being done and the principles are uninteresting.

Its very exciting when something comes along that seems genuinely magic. Its working and I haven't the faintest idea of how. I love magic!

Re: D-Wave: Truth finally starts to emerge

#40
PR departments have to release good publicity. Going too far is sleazy.

So is the recent D-Wave stuff just a combination of good PR and lazy journos, or are D-Wave being sleazy?

I guess it doesn't help that most people have no idea about quantum anything (let alone computing); or about massively parallel or P=NP etc.

Post reply on HN