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

161–170 of 215 posts

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#161

Post by jeeceebees »

sanxiyn wrote: post #121
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.

I don't think it's a non-event even if you're only interested in factoring.

This proves the underlying principle of a quantum speedup is a physical reality. It might be something people already take for granted if they're interested in factoring, but it's a crucial prerequisite that was not yet irrefutable.

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#162

Post by codeisawesome »

smsm42 wrote: post #122
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 hardes…

If you can serve ads any faster with it, you bet it's gonna get deployed to production faster than Nuclear Fusion ever had hope to be :-P

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#163

Post by toxicFork »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #126
whatshisface wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If they weigh the same as a duck then that should explain things, the birds are witches

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#165

Post by oldgradstudent »

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…

> Amazon is selling QC time for $20/kilogate-bit

Except that you'd only be able to pay with physical cash.

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#166

Post by KineticLensman »

lebed2045 wrote: post #152
smsm42 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hardes…

I don't think it's true for quantum computers. Folding proteins and stuff is good use-case of the cause but the real drive is the military. Same as for gen-AI. If you don't r&d this but Chine does - you're fucked. So the only way to do not become in the disadvantageous position - is to reason it yourself.

> the real drive is the military

Although military investment has driven many different technologies over the years, ‘the military’ is actually a complex mix of the Armed forces themselves, government acquisition organisations, and prime contractors and their supply chains. The resultant acquisition processes of many countries are glacially slow, with sometimes decadal timescales from requirements definition to delivery of full operational capability. Military acquisition is not agile, except when urgent operational requirements force rapid tech change by taking acquisition shortcuts.

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#167

Post by n4r9 »

nabla9 wrote: post #144

> But others, including my good friend Gil Kalai, are on record, right here on this blog predicting that even quantum supremacy can never be achieved for fundamental reasons. I won’t let them wiggle out of it now. Here is Gil Kalai's post from yesterday: "Quantum computers: amazing progress (Google & IBM), and extraordinary but probably false supremacy claims (Google)." https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2019/09/23/quant…

Note also Kalai's comment on this very blog post:

> Scott is correct that inability to achieve quantum supremacy is quite central to my argument (since 2014), so naturally I don’t expect that the recent claims by the Google team will stand. Of course, if these claims (or any other quantum supremacy claim) are correct then this would defeat my theory. It goes without saying that the claims are so fantastic that also responsible believers in quantum computers should examine these specific claims (like an alleged NP=! P proof) carefully and skeptically. Also, it would be nice to hear some details about the precise claims and methodology of the Google team.

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4317#comment-1819916

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#169

Post by miles7 »

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…

Regarding Lukin’s experiment - which is very interesting and high quality - in most instances it can be simulated by existing classical methods (matrix product states / DMRG being a key example). This does not detract from the importance of realizing the same system experimentally at all. But it does prevent it from realizing a gap between classical and quantum computing.

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#170

Post by sgt101 »

smsm42 wrote: post #122
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 hardes…

Supersonic commercial flight is one of the most interesting. I think two strange things happened. First we got the internet - and mobile phones and video conferences and this has eroded the value of rapid physical presence. Second, and I think this is more important, people have become more willing to sacrifice their time for their career/money/firm/dream vs. family/happiness/now.

An acquaintance flew Concorde a lot in the 80's, the reason - "I could get to Heathrow in the morning, fly to New York, do a meeting, fly back and get home the next morning". Another friend is a exec at a bank now and goes on month long odysseys to the USA, Asia and Australia. The contrast in perspective and commitment is striking, I don't think that Concorde would matter at all to these folks.

Post reply on HN