251–260 of 557 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is essentially search. Quantum computers are really good at search.
Search of what?
I don't want to judge people by their cover, but I want to confess to having those feelings right now. In this day and age, I feel an immediate sense of distrust to any technologist with the "Burning Man" aesthetic for lack of a better word. (which you can see in the author's wikipedia profile from an adjacent festival -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartmut_Neven , as well as in this blog itself with his wristbands…
So really what is being claimed is that classical computers can't easily simulate quantum ones. But is that really surprising?
What would be surprising would be that kind of speedup vs classical on some kind of general optimization algorithm. I don't think that is what they are claiming though, even if it does kind of seem like it's being presented that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 si…
I’m a quantum dabbler so I’ll throw out an armchair reaction: this is a significant announcement. My memory is that 256 bit keys in non quantum resistant algos need something like 2500 qubits or so; and by that I mean generally useful programmable qubits. To show a bit over 100 qubits with stability, meaning the information survives a while, long enough to be read, and general enough to run some benchmarks on is some…
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…
We have evidence for this universe though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Data security okay. But AI? How will that change?
Aren't quantum computers expected to be like digitally read analog computers for high dimension optimization problems, and AI is like massive high dimension optimization problems?
There are, however, analog quantum computers, e.g. by Pasqal, which hope to capitalize on this to optimize AI-like high dimension optimization problems.
They opened the API for it and I'm sending requests but the response always comes back 300ms before I send the request, is there a way of handling that with try{} predestined{} blocks? Or do I need to use the Bootstrap Paradox library?
What does Gemini say?
I’m a quantum dabbler so I’ll throw out an armchair reaction: this is a significant announcement. My memory is that 256 bit keys in non quantum resistant algos need something like 2500 qubits or so; and by that I mean generally useful programmable qubits. To show a bit over 100 qubits with stability, meaning the information survives a while, long enough to be read, and general enough to run some benchmarks on is some…
You need to distinguish between "physical qubits" and "logical qubits." This paper creates a single "first-of-a-kind" logical qubit with about 100 physical qubits (using Surface Code quantum error correction). A paper from Google in 2019 estimates needing ~20 million physical qubits ("How to factor 2048 bit RSA integers in 8 hours using 20 million noisy qubits" - https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.09749 ), though recent adva…
Am I oversimplifying in thinking that they’ve demonstrated that their quantum computer is better than at simulating a quantum system than a classical computer? In which case, should I be impressed? I mean sure, it sounds like you’ve implemented a quantum VM.
Simulating a quantum system is a hard challenge and it's actually how Feynman proposed the quantum computing paradigm in the first place. It's basically the original motive.
I’ve seen lots of people dismissing this as if it isn’t impressive or important. I’ve watched one video where the author said in a deprecating manner “quantum computers are good for just two things: generating random numbers and simulating quantum systems”.
It’s like saying “the thing is good for just two things: making funny noises and producing infinite energy”.
(Also, generating random numbers is pretty useful, but I digress)