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

Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 237 posts

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#171

Post by avsteele »

deepburner wrote: post #137

Quantum Computing/Information researcher here. This article is largely garbage, the original (~2 month old) paper is surprisingly readable [0] and I suggest you to check it out. Here's my $0.02: The efforts of the Google team is commendable in that they're trying to squeeze as much out of their noisy systems as possible until error correction is here (they need to, to justify their existence after all) and they are a…

Grover's algorithm seems quite useful, though I'd guess it requires an enormous number of qubits (large unordered database) to be useful.

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#172

Post by skywhopper »

hedora wrote: post #130
wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quantum computing feels like nucleair fusion. Been hearing about how its going to change the world since I was kid.

Well, in fairness, I could say the same about solar, improved batteries, etc.

Solar has become incredibly inexpensive in the last decade, and batteries likewise are many times better than they were 20 years ago. Is there further to go, yes, but progress has been steady and real applications are all around you for both. Our phones are marvels of battery technology that was impossible 15 years ago.

Fusion and quantum computing on the other hand. Neither has yet solved one problem or made net progress. They have great promise but the practicalities may ultimately outweigh the benefits. Meanwhile, solar-charged batteries powering high performance electric cars are more common every day.

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#175

Post by Dylan16807 »

imchillyb wrote: post #170
marricks wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> solar, improved batteries Neither of those sounded as sexy (i.e hyped) to me a nuclear fusion and quantum computers.

> solar, improved batteries >> Neither of those sounded as sexy (i.e hyped) to me a nuclear fusion and quantum computers. Breaking News: The Gates Foundation has actually deployed a product -- Solary! Meet Solary, The Gates Foundation replacement for salaries and a new way to power your entire home. This $1,000 (price pending review) device can provide a multi-family, multi-story, dwelling with power for 100 years. T…

Eh? A random person making up a fictional press release doesn't count as hype, you know that right?

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#176

Post by Dylan16807 »

mistermann wrote: post #166
flangola7 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generate reality? I am not crystal clear on what you're talking about. Quantum computers are still just computers, not magical replicators from Star Trek.

I'm talking about the mind's ability to generate what "is", and "is not". It is a curso no doubt, but it is also sometimes a blessing. But usually it runs unnoticed (or even: denied ) in the background, duffing things up. And when it gets noticed, sometimes really weird things happen.

> And when it gets noticed, sometimes really weird things happen.

....such as?

If you have any proof you can probably get a nobel prize.

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#177

Post by erikaww »

deepburner wrote: post #137

Quantum Computing/Information researcher here. This article is largely garbage, the original (~2 month old) paper is surprisingly readable [0] and I suggest you to check it out. Here's my $0.02: The efforts of the Google team is commendable in that they're trying to squeeze as much out of their noisy systems as possible until error correction is here (they need to, to justify their existence after all) and they are a…

I'm not educated on QC. But wouldn't Grover's algorithm be very useful? I believe it provides a sqrt(n) time search. For QC to be useful,it just needs to make common utilities very fast. I should look more into QC. It would be cool if it could speed all computation up. I understand there are algorithms that it could execute that a classical composer could not, but I wonder if it could eventually he like just faster hardware.

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#179

Post by riwsky »

chaboud wrote: post #156
riwsky wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complexity theory doesn’t handle it, but that’s why I didn’t use complexity theory. Economics handles it fine: no one’s ever paid you or anyone else to do a wood-breaking simulation at a sufficient physical level of detail to capture the sound accurately, so the comparative savings on it aren’t economically valuable.

Sound effect libraries have long included the sounds of wood breaking/cracking, generally recorded (rather than simulated). A couple of jobs ago, we sold sound effect libraries that cost 2-5x the cost of the software applications that they were used with (hundreds to thousands of dollars). I think you’d be hard pressed to find economists (beyond freshman college students who recently discovered Nietzsche second hand…

You misunderstand me. It doesn’t matter how much the sound library is worth: if you weren’t using simulation to build it, then it’s irrelevant for the economic value of the simulation.

Like, you can turn lead into gold if you run a nuclear reactor—and gold is valuable—but running this process is way more expensive than just buying gold, so it’s not valuable.

Re: Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer

#180

Post by pclmulqdq »

dekhn wrote: post #153

the best thing about watching the entire quantum computing debacle is every time somebody says their QC does something faster than a classical computer, somebody tunes the classical computer to beat the QC. Combined with the fact that chip infrastructure is already paid for and there is a large market to enable economy of scale, coupled with the lack of true problems where exponentially better problem solving is crit…

With all of the sensationalization, I am now convinced that many of the people in quantum computing itself are grifters, and that funding agencies keep paying them to put pressure on classical computing (despite knowing that QC is a big grift).

Already, optimization problems have seen classical "ising" chips get great results (as good as the quantum annealing chips), proving that optimization doesn't actually need tunneling or superposition.

Now, the number theorists just need to come up with a classical analog for a QFT or another similar transform, and we will see them obviate QC here. Arguably, RSA being obsolete has already done this.

In simulation, supercomputers are also making huge advances in power.

Post reply on HN