Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer
1–10 of 237 posts
Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer
#2The cited paper[1] references "random circuit sampling" which is defined in [2] which then gets so heavy into abstract math, and I give up.
Can someone explain this in terms an EE or programmer can understand?
Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer
#3"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." Not having real world applications is not necessarily damning, of course. Curious to know what implications this has for general algorithms. Reading this, it almost makes it sound like there will be some algorithms that quantum is better at and that they won't necessarily be the same algorithms that "classical" computing uses.
Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer
#4The cited paper[1] references "random circuit sampling" which is defined in [2] which then gets so heavy into abstract math, and I give up. Can someone explain this in terms an EE or programmer can understand? [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.11119 [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.07872
Like reddit's ELI5 (explain it like I'm five), but ELIHAM (explain it like I (only) have a masters)?
Yeah, if someone could please do that.
Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer
#5Google's and IBM's previous "quantum supremacy" demonstrations were quickly crushed by improved classical simulations. Let's see if it survives this time.
Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer
#6The cited paper[1] references "random circuit sampling" which is defined in [2] which then gets so heavy into abstract math, and I give up. Can someone explain this in terms an EE or programmer can understand? [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.11119 [2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.07872
> The theoretical basis for these experiments depends on sampling the output distributions of random quantum circuits; unfortunately, understanding how this theoretical basis can be used to define quantum supremacy is an extremely difficult task. Anyone attempting to understand how this sampling task relates to quantum supremacy must study concepts from random matrix theory, mathematical analysis, quantum chaos, computational complexity, and probability theory. Resources connecting these concepts in the context of quantum supremacy are scattered and often difficult to find.
At the end of the day, people writing these papers are also human. The very same sorts of humans who pad resumes with shiny technology and self-serving complexity.
This might be a case of a rabbit you do not want to chase.
Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer
#7Dumb question:
Say I have a wooden stick and I break it in half in less than a second. Assume a computer would need several minutes to simulate everything that would've happened in the stick. I clearly got the output faster than a computer (and with more precision), so does this imply I'm doing anything particularly fascinating?
I assume the same scenario is possible to concoct for a quantum computer. I assume it wouldn't be particularly interesting either. So what are the criteria for distinguishing those scenarios from the "interesting" cases? And how do we know which case this one is like?
Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer
#8"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." Not having real world applications is not necessarily damning, of course. Curious to know what implications this has for general algorithms. Reading this, it almost makes it sound like there will be some algorithms that quantum is better a…
The real question to me, is how it will take to get more (useful) qubits.
Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer
#9"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." Not having real world applications is not necessarily damning, of course. Curious to know what implications this has for general algorithms. Reading this, it almost makes it sound like there will be some algorithms that quantum is better a…
My understanding is that quantum computers only have two real use cases, as of today:
1. Breaking crypto. 2. Simulating other quantum systems.
For (1) it's basically all downsides. For (2) unless you're a particle phycisist you'll never need quantum computers.
But that's now. Maybe there will be a killer app for it some day, changing everything. Or indeed, we could get it indirectly. Maybe simulating quantum systems we could invent new battery technologies, which in turn changes our lives.
Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer
#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 the most level headed take from the paper and an explanation why (if claims are to be believed) we haven't seen anything useful come from quantum computing yet that couldn't be done by classical computers.
Maybe it still is all hype and the reason we haven't seen a useful calculation is because the only problems it can solve better than others happen to be especially contrived. I guess time will tell.