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

Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

scottaaronson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 215 posts

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#121

Post by sanxiyn »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #116

>Q12. Even so, there are countless examples of materials and chemical reactions that are hard to classically simulate, as well as special-purpose quantum simulators (like those of Lukin’s group at Harvard). Why don’t these already count as quantum computational supremacy? >Under some people’s definitions of “quantum computational supremacy,” they do! The key difference with Google’s effort is that they have a fully p…

I mostly agree with this. If you are interested in Extended Church-Turing Thesis, this event is very important. If you are interested in factoring, this is a non-event. I think most people are interested in factoring.

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#122

Post by smsm42 »

whatshisface wrote: post #4

If it goes well, the history of quantum computing will be divided up in to three eras: the era of twisty philosophical arguments that it's working ("the molecule is simulating itself"), the era of academic arguments that it's working ("we can solve this one carefully constructed problem") and the era of practical arguments ("Amazon is selling QC time for $20/kilogate-bit, what do you mean it's not possible?"). Quantu…

The third stage is the hardest. Thermonuclear energy production has been sitting in "theoretically possible, but economically unviable" for decades, tons of technologies like supersonic commercial flight has been achieved and then scrapped because of practical concerns, many other technologies struggle with passing economic viability barrier. Taking that into account, getting from 2nd to 3rd stage would be the hardest task. Comparing to classic computers, their practical usability has been clear since Babbage time, so far it's not the case for QC.

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#123

Post by whatshisface »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #116

>Q12. Even so, there are countless examples of materials and chemical reactions that are hard to classically simulate, as well as special-purpose quantum simulators (like those of Lukin’s group at Harvard). Why don’t these already count as quantum computational supremacy? >Under some people’s definitions of “quantum computational supremacy,” they do! The key difference with Google’s effort is that they have a fully p…

At the time of the Wright brothers, which was incidentally before Frisbees were invented, there were some naysayers that thought heavier than air flight was simply impossible. A Frisbee, which can be chucked much further than a balloon, would for them serve as actual proof of "wooden supremacy."

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#124

Post by someotherone »

So it looks like QC is good for speeding up simulations, and with far less overhead for ECC and such than it needs for things like factoring. So is simulation the QC "killer app"?

Does it only do certain kinds of simulations well, i.e. simulations of quantum systems, or can that be generalized? Can it be applied to economic, environmental, traffic, etc as well?

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#125

Post by smsm42 »

p1necone wrote: post #40
whatshisface wrote: post #4

If it goes well, the history of quantum computing will be divided up in to three eras: the era of twisty philosophical arguments that it's working ("the molecule is simulating itself"), the era of academic arguments that it's working ("we can solve this one carefully constructed problem") and the era of practical arguments ("Amazon is selling QC time for $20/kilogate-bit, what do you mean it's not possible?"). Quantu…

I really enjoy seeing comments on here that fit the 3rd kind. " Thing is ridiculous, that could never work because of reasons A, B and C." "What are you talking about, here is project that does thing , it functions perfectly." Nothing like reality proving someones baseless naysaying wrong immediately.

Except reality has so far proved that it is possible to use QC for solving one QC-specific task that is hard to solve classically, that's it. That's not what "naysaing" was about - the "naysaying" was about the fact we have no way to use QC for known classical tasks, and the path to such juicy targets as breaking commercial public key encryption is entirely unclear. Virtually nobody says it would never ever happen - but so far it has not happened and will not happen soon, and reality has not proven anything contradicting that yet. When, in 2038 or in 2083, the reality finally gets there, then your condescending attitude towards the naysayers would finally be completely warranted. But not yet.

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#126

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

whatshisface wrote: post #123
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #116

>Q12. Even so, there are countless examples of materials and chemical reactions that are hard to classically simulate, as well as special-purpose quantum simulators (like those of Lukin’s group at Harvard). Why don’t these already count as quantum computational supremacy? >Under some people’s definitions of “quantum computational supremacy,” they do! The key difference with Google’s effort is that they have a fully p…

At the time of the Wright brothers, which was incidentally before Frisbees were invented, there were some naysayers that thought heavier than air flight was simply impossible. A Frisbee, which can be chucked much further than a balloon, would for them serve as actual proof of "wooden supremacy."

Interesting. Any idea how they responded to the obvious retorts about heavier than air birds?

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#127

Post by sanxiyn »

someotherone wrote: post #124

So it looks like QC is good for speeding up simulations, and with far less overhead for ECC and such than it needs for things like factoring. So is simulation the QC "killer app"? Does it only do certain kinds of simulations well, i.e. simulations of quantum systems, or can that be generalized? Can it be applied to economic, environmental, traffic, etc as well?

There is no known useful application of current quantum computing (so-called NISQ, for Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum). It is an open question whether there is any, see https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.00862.

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#128

Post by riffraff »

desert_boi wrote: post #119
andrewflnr wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a native English speaker, I can't say I've found this to be the case. "Enormity" does tend to be used for dramatic effect, most often on moral issues, but I don't think that makes Scott wrong to use it here. I don't know if I've seen "enormousness" before this thread.

Since enormous is from Latin, stems tend to be Latin. `ness` generally only is morphologically productive with Germanic roots, kindness, happiness, etc. When I visited Iceland, I remember a sign in English that said a cliff was insafe [sic]. `in` being a Latin morpheme, and safe being Germanic.

Ah, I never realized in/un would be used with corresponding Latin/Germanic words.

But then, it seems there are quite a few un+latin (unreal, unbalanced, unadulterated, uncertain etc), even if I can't think of in+Germanic.

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#129

Post by ClintEhrlich »

sho wrote: post #111
ClintEhrlich wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. Enormous : enormousness :: huge : hugeness. Enormity = Immense scale of evil (e.g., the "enormity of the holocaust")

It can be used in that way, but the neutral usage is valid too. I'd even argue the "evil" undertones of the usage you describe borders on archaic. "Enormousness" isn't a word in common usage that I'm aware of.

I have no dog in the fight, and wish "enormity" had never developed a normative undertone, but I strongly disagree that said usage is anything close to archaic.

If you Google "enormity," the dictionary definitions it displays before the results are: 1.the great or extreme scale, seriousness, or extent of something perceived as bad or morally wrong. "a thorough search disclosed the full enormity of the crime" 2. a grave crime or sin. "the enormities of the regime"

Merriam-Webster claims this is not the exclusive usage, and that enormity can mean "immensity" without normative implications when the size is unexpected. But the very example it cites, from Steinbeck, involves the "enormity" of a situation in which a fire was started.

That said, I agree that "enormousness" is an awkward word, which I do not use. I'm left to ponder the enormity of my own pedantry.

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#130

Post by baby »

whatshisface wrote: post #4

If it goes well, the history of quantum computing will be divided up in to three eras: the era of twisty philosophical arguments that it's working ("the molecule is simulating itself"), the era of academic arguments that it's working ("we can solve this one carefully constructed problem") and the era of practical arguments ("Amazon is selling QC time for $20/kilogate-bit, what do you mean it's not possible?"). Quantu…

We still don’t know if the third era is possible.
Post reply on HN