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

191–200 of 215 posts

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#191

Post by dfsegoat »

pgeorgi wrote: post #133
dfsegoat wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the ITER wiki link: > ITER Project was initiated in 1988. > The expected cost of ITER has risen from US$5 billion to US$20 billion, and the timeline for operation at full power was moved from the original estimate of 2016 to 2027. > A technical concern is that the 14 MeV neutrons produced by the fusion reactions will damage the materials from which the reactor is built ... definitely not clear to me that this is…

> ITER Project was initiated in 1988. > The expected cost of ITER has risen from US$5 billion to US$20 billion So factor 4 in 30 years. That's approximately inflation, no?

I did not think of that. An excellent point.

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#192

Post by andrewla »

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…

From what I've parsed of the paper, this appears to fall firmly in the first category. This is a quantum computer simulating a quantum circuit; it's like saying that swirly water in a sink is achieving fluid dynamics supremacy, because we can't compute the results as fast as the water moves. Q12 touches on this.

I'd be really interested to hear what Gil Kalai has to say on this particular subject; he's generally pretty fair minded while being of a QC skeptic. He has a response up [1] but I haven't read through it yet.

[1] https://gilkalai.wordpress.com/2019/09/23/quantum-computers-...

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#193

Post by tialaramex »

moyix wrote: post #181
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…

> Comparing to classic computers, their practical usability has been clear since Babbage time Is this true? I thought that in the 40s-50s there was some argument over whether practical computers could really be built given that vacuum tubes were so unreliable. Von Neumann wrote gave a series of lectures in 1952 (eventually transcribed into an article) showing how it could be done: http://arep.med.harvard.edu/gmc/Von_…

The first transistors are 1947. We don't use that sort of transistor today, but unlike the vacuum tube it would have been obvious that a computer built from these transistors was viable. You can't get to the iPhone from there, but room size machines that do arbitrary Turing computation are only expensive. So that means it's in the realm of supersonic flight. If you must do it you can, but maybe you'll decide it's too expensive.

By 1950 then, the only question is whether we should, not whether we can.

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#194

Post by scottlocklin »

khawkins wrote: post #105
yters wrote: post #92

Most major breakthroughs were pretty low tech in origin, and the high tech was all about optimizing the idea. I think we get fundamental research backwards nowadays.

At the very least, we shouldn't be comparing quantum computing to air flight. The Wright brothers were basically hobbyists, incomparable to the global leading technology corporations in the history of human civilization. This seems more comparable to the moon landing or LHC Higgs-Boson discovery. Challenging to pull off once, and the next steps seem to increase exponentially in man-power and cost.

I think the proper analogy is controlled nuclear fusion, which google is also dabbling with.

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#196

Post by alanbernstein »

erichocean wrote: post #120
alanbernstein wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no comment on the QC claims, but regarding the flight analogy, it seems you're being disingenuous: https://www.xaprb.com/blog/flight-is-impossible/

Curious: Did you Google that just now, in order to comment here?

Yes I did. Did you invent a historical "fact" to comment here?

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#197

Post by TremendousJudge »

biztos wrote: post #174
sgt101 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Could the improvements in Business and First Class travel, combined with the increased use of private jets (also NetJets) have contributed to the downfall of the Concorde? The more comfortable you are in the flight, the less the actual number of hours flown bothers you.

Here is the issue explained in 10-minute youtube format by Wendover Productions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1QEj09Pe6k

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#198

Post by TremendousJudge »

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.

So relatively we will all be about the same, but in absolute terms we will all be worse off?

Where have I heard this before...

Re: Scott’s Supreme Quantum Supremacy FAQ

#199

Post by reikonomusha »

sanxiyn wrote: post #135
reikonomusha wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do small chemical simulations easily on a processor like this.

Really? I haven't seen any molecular simulation proposal that can be run without quantum error correction. I think if there is such a thing it would count as a breakthrough by itself. Any reference?

There are many, many experiments done simulating molecules, from hydrogen dimers to water. Just one example of many:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.10238.pdf

Post reply on HN