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

Willow, Our Quantum Chip

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 557 posts

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#131

Post by riiii »

kridsdale1 wrote: post #119
_benj wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment reminded me of the TV show I've been recently watching on Netflix, Pantheon. It's about a different technical breakthrough (I don't want to put any spoilers), but it's also something that completely alters society, no security is able to deal with that new technology, first thing that happens is that the technology is weaponized... etc. Idk enough about quantum computing to even understand this... but a…

This is how I feel about drones.

They'll be banned for public use in the next 2-3 years. I'm not advocating for the ban, just saying it'll happen.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#132

Post by SAI_Peregrinus »

mperham wrote: post #121
echelon wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google could put themselves and everyone else out of business if the algorithms that underpin our ability to do e-commerce and financial transactions can be defeated. Goodbye not just to Bitcoin, but also Visa, Stripe, Amazon shopping, ...

Right? Does TLS1.3 have the underpinnings to use quantum-proof encryption algos? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/post-quantu... https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2024/10/09...

Yes-ish. They're not enabled yet, but post-quantum signatures & KEMs are available in some experimental versions of TLS. None are yet standardized, but I'd expect a final version well before QCs can actually break practical signatures or key exchanges.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#133

Post by crote »

ra7 wrote: post #53
pandemic_region wrote: post #50

> Willow performed a standard benchmark computation in under five minutes that would take one of today’s fastest supercomputers 10 septillion years — a number that vastly exceeds the age of the Universe. What computation would that be? Also, what is the relationship, if any, between quantum computing and AI? Are these technologies complementary?

It's in the article. Random circuit sampling benchmark: https://research.google/blog/validating-random-circuit-sampl...

Is it really fair to call that "computation"? I am definitely not an expert, but it seems they are just doing a meaningless operation which happens to be trivial on a quantum computer but near-impossible to simulate on a classical computer.

To me that sounds a bit like saying my "sand computer" (hourglass) is way faster than a classical computer, because it'd take a classical computer trillions of years to exactly simulate the final position of every individual grain of sand.

Sure, it proves that your quantum computer is actually a genuine quantum computer, but it's not going to be topping the LINPACK charts or factoring large semiprimes any time soon, is it?

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#134

Post by nick__m »

tombert wrote: post #2

Interesting; it might be time for me to load up a quantum simulator and star learning how to program these things. I've pushed that off for a long time since I wasn't completely convinced that quantum computers actually worked, but I think I was wrong.

IBM has well structured learning material and a quantum simulator at https://learning.quantum.ibm.com/

Also my almamater made the quantum enigmas series that is appropriate for high-school students (it also interesting if you have no prior knowledge about quantum computing) https://www.usherbrooke.ca/iq/quantumenigmas/ (it also use IBM online learning platform)

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#135

Post by zelon88 »

> It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse, a prediction first made by David Deutsch.

Can someone explain to me how he made the jump from "we achieved a meaninful threshold in quantum computing performance" to "The multiverse is probably real."

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#136

Post by korkybuchek »

vessenes wrote: post #42
korkybuchek wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do quantum computing folks really think that we are borrowing capacity from other universes for these calculations? Tangentially related, but there's a great Asimov book about this called The Gods Themselves (fiction).

I’m partial to Anathem by Stephenson on this topic as well

Thanks for the recommendation!

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#137

Post by jayd16 »

hshshshshsh wrote: post #125
gaze wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm upset they put this in because this is absolutely not the view of most quantum foundations researchers.

Science is not based on consensus seeking. Science is about coming up with the best explanations irrespective of whether or not a large chunk does not believe it. And best explanations are the ones that is hard to vary. Not the one that is most widely accepted or easy to accept based on the current world view.

Actually it is exactly based on hypotheses that are verified.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#139

Post by hshshshshsh »

jawns wrote: post #8

> It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse I see the evidence, and I see the conclusion, but there's a lot of ellipses between the evidence and the conclusion. Do quantum computing folks really think that we are borrowing capacity from other universes for these calculations?

The quantum computer idea was literally invented by David Deutsche to test the many universes theory of quantum physics.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#140

Post by wasabi991011 »

hshshshshsh wrote: post #122
wasabi991011 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was also really taken aback by this quote. I have no idea who put it there, but I can assure you the actual paper contains no such nonsense. I would have thought whoever writes the google tech blogs is more competent than bottom tier science journalists. But in this case I think it is more reasonable to assume malice, as the post is authored by the Google Quantum AI Lead, and makes more sense as hype-boosting buzzw…

Quantum computation done in done multiple universes is the explanation given by David Deutsch the father of Quantum Computing. He invented the idea of a quantum computer to test the idea of parallel universes. If you are okay with a single universe coming to existence out of nothing you should be able to handle parallel universes as well just fine. Also your comment does not have any useful information. You assumed h…

I disagree that it is "the best explanation we have". It's a nice theory, but like all theories in quantum foundations / interpretations of quantum mechanics, it is (at least currently) unfalsifiable.

I didn't "assume" hype, I hypothesized it based on the evidence before me: There is nothing in Google's paper that deals with interpretations of quantum mechanics. This only appears in the blog post, with no evidence given. And there is nothing google is doing with it's quantum chip that would discriminate between interpretations of QM, so it is simply false that "It lends credence to ... parallel universes" over another interpretation.

Post reply on HN