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

Google Quantum AI

quantumai.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 210 posts

Re: Google Quantum AI

#201

Post by jncfhnb »

adrian_b wrote: post #169
jncfhnb wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not claiming quantum mechanics can be efficiently simulated on a normal computer. I’m questioning whether arbitrary quantum mechanics systems can be effectively simulated by a quantum computer.

I have not seen any description of a general-purpose programmable quantum computer, which could simulate an arbitrary quantum system, like a digital computer. All the examples given that I have seen were for making a hardwired simulator for a concrete quantum system, e.g. some chemical macromolecule of interest, to be used much in the same way as analog computers were used in the past for simulating systems governed…

Are hard coded quantum simulators even the same thing though? Like, if we’re saying that the goal of a quantum simulator is merely to run a high dimensional problem and exploit the nature of qubits to make it simpler to handle those imaginary vectors and what not…

Does that actually follow the same framework as “traditional” “quantum computing”, e.g. struggles with error correction / problem formulation specifically designed to avoid unnecessary calculations?

It feels like although a quantum simulator could viably work to simulate a specific system, it shouldn’t make it any easier to actually understand the system it is simulating and could maybe just indicate how complex by the amount of variation in simulation outcomes (which isn’t useless). Is that accurate?

Excuse my terminology here

Re: Google Quantum AI

#202

Post by bigfudge »

huytersd wrote: post #36
bigfudge wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your comment is rude, and naive in that it misses the point. The investment here is small relative the the marketing budget, which tells us something about their priorities.

[flagged]

If you think setting this up is simple you have no idea how big corporations make decisions like this. Even if the actual website setup was simple, many people will have been involved and the 'marketing cost' has to account for the time of senior staff deciding on the goals of the project (which seem largely about PR, at least to me). It's not just the cost of a single web dev hacking a few pages together.

Re: Google Quantum AI

#203

Post by breck »

tsimionescu wrote: post #165
breck wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no one has figured out a use for quantum computers. It is my understanding that a use is very straightforward: quickly solving problems in the Big(O) Factorial Class (n!). I could be misunderstanding QC though.

Yes, you are. Quantum computers are only believed to be faster than classical computers for a handful of very specific problems. And even those are not 100% proven (we don't have a proof that a faster classical algorithm doesn't exist for any of them, except Grover's search, which is only a quadratic speedup, not an exponential one).

> only believed to be faster than classical computers for a handful of very specific problems

But aren't these problems all in the factorial and exponential classes?

Re: Google Quantum AI

#204

Post by tsimionescu »

breck wrote: post #203
tsimionescu wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you are. Quantum computers are only believed to be faster than classical computers for a handful of very specific problems. And even those are not 100% proven (we don't have a proof that a faster classical algorithm doesn't exist for any of them, except Grover's search, which is only a quadratic speedup, not an exponential one).

> only believed to be faster than classical computers for a handful of very specific problems But aren't these problems all in the factorial and exponential classes?

I think they are believed to be, but the opposite is not true. There are a lot of exponential or factorial problems that have no efficient QC algorithm, and are not beleieved to be likely to have one.

Also, at least the most famous problem which has an efficient QC algorithm, integer factorization, has no proven lower complexity bound on classical computers. That is, while the best algorithm we know for it is exponential (or, technically, sub-exponential), it is not yet proven that no polynomial classical algorithm exists. The problem isn't even NP-complete, so it's not like finding an efficient algorithm would prove P=NP.

Re: Google Quantum AI

#205

Post by dang »

huytersd wrote: post #34
brainless wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Re: Google Quantum AI

#206

Post by dang »

brainless wrote: post #28
huytersd wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Crossing into personal attack is not ok in HN comments, and we've had to ask you at least once before not to do this.

I'm not going to ban your account right now because it doesn't look like you've recently been making a habit of doing this, but please don't do it again. Your comment would be fine without the first two sentences.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

Re: Google Quantum AI

#207

Post by fastball »

habosa wrote: post #120
kamov wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing the industry there's a bunch of people out there on the payroll continuously knocking out these assets all day long every day.

Google routinely uses agencies for this kind of work (I have been on both sides). A marketing website like this would be a ~$100,000 spend (depends how many pages and how many creative assets).

That sounds a bit high, but I'll trust your expertise.

Regardless, 1/50 the value of the prize doesn't seem egregious to me.

Re: Google Quantum AI

#208

Post by brainless »

dang wrote: post #206
brainless wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Crossing into personal attack is not ok in HN comments, and we've had to ask you at least once before not to do this. I'm not going to ban your account right now because it doesn't look like you've recently been making a habit of doing this, but please don't do it again. Your comment would be fine without the first two sentences. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the…

I did not see this earlier. Thanks for taking the time and I agree the comment looks more aggressive than I had in my mind.

Re: Google Quantum AI

#209

Post by dang »

brainless wrote: post #208
dang wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crossing into personal attack is not ok in HN comments, and we've had to ask you at least once before not to do this. I'm not going to ban your account right now because it doesn't look like you've recently been making a habit of doing this, but please don't do it again. Your comment would be fine without the first two sentences. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the…

I did not see this earlier. Thanks for taking the time and I agree the comment looks more aggressive than I had in my mind.

Appreciated!

Re: Google Quantum AI

#210

Post by razodactyl »

Sesse__ wrote: post #104
becquerel wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Einstein did not have GPS in mind when he was developing his theories of relativity.

The theory of relativity does not in any way enable GPS. GPS is subject to (some) relativistic effects, but that is merely a source of bias, which could be corrected for with just an experience-based correction factor even if we did not understand relativity. If relativity did not exist as a physical concept, GPS would be easier, not harder or impossible. (I guess this misconception comes from xkcd in some form?) A p…

Heh. This is an interesting comment. Imagine if we didn't know about relativity - we would have discovered it as an annoyance/weird quirk instead as we ran into it.

Reminds me of that story about the self-evolving chip that was tasked to learn how to classify tones and instead took advantage of specific flaws in its own package.

Post reply on HN