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

Willow, Our Quantum Chip

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 557 posts

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#31

Post by korkybuchek »

jawns wrote: post #8

> It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse I see the evidence, and I see the conclusion, but there's a lot of ellipses between the evidence and the conclusion. Do quantum computing folks really think that we are borrowing capacity from other universes for these calculations?

> Do quantum computing folks really think that we are borrowing capacity from other universes for these calculations?

Tangentially related, but there's a great Asimov book about this called The Gods Themselves (fiction).

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#32

Post by sdenton4 »

ipsum2 wrote: post #13

They renamed quantum supremacy to "beyond-classical"? That's something.

Quantum supremacy was an absolutely awful name for what it was (ability to do something, anything, better than a classical computer, which remains 'supreme' on all problems of any practical interest).

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#34

Post by DebtDeflation »

>the more qubits we use in Willow, the more we reduce errors, and the more quantum the system becomes

That's an EXTRAORDINARY claim and one that contradicts the experience of pretty much all other research and development in quantum error correction over the course of the history of quantum computing.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#35

Post by wasabi991011 »

jawns wrote: post #8

> It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse I see the evidence, and I see the conclusion, but there's a lot of ellipses between the evidence and the conclusion. Do quantum computing folks really think that we are borrowing capacity from other universes for these calculations?

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 buzzword bullshit than as an honest misunderstanding that was not caught during editing.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#36

Post by LampCharger »

nuz wrote: post #4

Every time this comes up people say they're not actually useful for ML. Is that true? And if not what would they be useful for

No, a true quantum computer will not necessarily solve NP-complete (NPC) problems efficiently. Quantum algorithms like Grover’s provide quadratic speedups, but this is insufficient to turn exponential-time solutions into polynomial-time ones. While quantum computers excel in specific tasks (e.g., Shor’s algorithm for factoring), there’s no evidence they can solve all NP-complete problems efficiently.

Current complexity theory suggests that , the class of problems solvable by quantum computers, does not encompass . Quantum computers may aid in approximations or heuristics for NPC problems but won’t fundamentally resolve them in polynomial time unless , which remains unlikely.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#37

Post by vessenes »

nuz wrote: post #4

Every time this comes up people say they're not actually useful for ML. Is that true? And if not what would they be useful for

Factoring. Reversing ECC operations. Decrypting all the data thought to be safely stored at rest in any non quantum resistant storage.

I do think ai algorithms could be built that quantum gates could be fast at, but I don’t have any ideas off the top of my head this morning. If you think of AI training as searching the space of computational complexity and quantum algorithms as accessing a superposition of search states I would guess there’s an intersection. Google thinks so too - the lab is called quantum ai.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#38

Post by ColinHayhurst »

gaze wrote: post #12
jawns wrote: post #8

> It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse I see the evidence, and I see the conclusion, but there's a lot of ellipses between the evidence and the conclusion. Do quantum computing folks really think that we are borrowing capacity from other universes for these calculations?

I'm upset they put this in because this is absolutely not the view of most quantum foundations researchers.

Credibility of the article plummeted when I got to that sentence, and especially since using name dropping.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#39

Post by gaze »

whimsicalism wrote: post #20
gaze wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm upset they put this in because this is absolutely not the view of most quantum foundations researchers.

the everettian view is absolutely not the view? i am not so sure. or you mean specifically the parallel computation view?

sorry -- the results don't add weight to one view or the other. The interpretations are equivalent.

Re: Willow, Our Quantum Chip

#40

Post by ComputerGuru »

jawns wrote: post #8

> It lends credence to the notion that quantum computation occurs in many parallel universes, in line with the idea that we live in a multiverse I see the evidence, and I see the conclusion, but there's a lot of ellipses between the evidence and the conclusion. Do quantum computing folks really think that we are borrowing capacity from other universes for these calculations?

It doesn’t make sense to me because if we can borrow capacity to perform calculations then we can “borrow” an infinite amount of energy.
Post reply on HN