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

41–50 of 210 posts

Re: Google Quantum AI

#41

Post by amarcheschi »

fooker wrote: post #15

The fact this prize exists is admitting that no one has figured out a use for quantum computers. I have heard this mentioned several times in the last decade or so : "The only thing a quantum computer definitively does better than a classical computer is simulating a quantum computer." Whether this capability is useful is up in the air. Note that in practice, classical computers are going to be better at factoring nu…

I had a guy I knew in a PhD in quantum computing and he told me that he was working on making an algorithm to perform edge detection on an image in O(1), apparently it's possible to do some operation much quicker with quantum computing

A paper i found on edge detection https://arxiv.org/html/2404.06889v1#:~:text=Quantum%20Hadama....

Re: Google Quantum AI

#42

Post by dudeinjapan »

fooker wrote: post #15

The fact this prize exists is admitting that no one has figured out a use for quantum computers. I have heard this mentioned several times in the last decade or so : "The only thing a quantum computer definitively does better than a classical computer is simulating a quantum computer." Whether this capability is useful is up in the air. Note that in practice, classical computers are going to be better at factoring nu…

It's a "solution looking for a problem." Nothing wrong with that. Lasers were theorized in 1917 by Einstein and invented at Bell Labs in 1958, but it took another 20 years before anyone had any idea what the heck to do with them. Now they are the backbone of the internet, among thousands of other applications. Patience, grasshopper.

Re: Google Quantum AI

#43

Post by foota »

mise_en_place wrote: post #40

They claim to have 10^2 qubits which is cool but how much energy does it take to keep things cool. I can only think about the massive amount of energy wasted on it.

If your only problem with a quantum computer is the energy required to run it, then you have a very good problem.

edit: it might make sense to be worried about the feasibility of cooling it, since I think the infrastructure required for keeping the quantum-y parts of the computer cold is extensive, but the actual energy itself is probably irrelevant.

Re: Google Quantum AI

#44

Post by tromp »

The milestones specify number of physical qubits, and error rate of logical qubits.

Shouldn't they also specify how many physical qubits are needed to build one logical qubit with the given error rate?

Milestone 6 reduces the error rate from 10^-6 to 10^-13 while increasing physical qubits by only 10x. That doesn't work out well if you need 1000x more physical qubits per logical one...

Re: Google Quantum AI

#45

Post by fooker »

amarcheschi wrote: post #41
fooker wrote: post #15

The fact this prize exists is admitting that no one has figured out a use for quantum computers. I have heard this mentioned several times in the last decade or so : "The only thing a quantum computer definitively does better than a classical computer is simulating a quantum computer." Whether this capability is useful is up in the air. Note that in practice, classical computers are going to be better at factoring nu…

I had a guy I knew in a PhD in quantum computing and he told me that he was working on making an algorithm to perform edge detection on an image in O(1), apparently it's possible to do some operation much quicker with quantum computing A paper i found on edge detection https://arxiv.org/html/2404.06889v1#:~:text=Quantum%20Hadama... .

This might be a good candidate for Google's prize, unless I'm missing something?

Re: Google Quantum AI

#46

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

fooker wrote: post #15

The fact this prize exists is admitting that no one has figured out a use for quantum computers. I have heard this mentioned several times in the last decade or so : "The only thing a quantum computer definitively does better than a classical computer is simulating a quantum computer." Whether this capability is useful is up in the air. Note that in practice, classical computers are going to be better at factoring nu…

From Feynman's 1982 talk on quantum computing:

"[N]ature isn't classical, dammit, and if you want to make a simulation of nature, you'd better make it quantum mechanical, and by golly it's a wonderful problem, because it doesn't look so easy."

0. https://s2.smu.edu/~mitch/class/5395/papers/feynman-quantum-...

Re: Google Quantum AI

#47

Post by Hewlberno »

The lack of knowledge and ignorance of quantum computing in this thread is incredible.

Quantum computers do exist.

They are extremely useful and do things that digital computers cannot do. Categorically cannot.

The cynicism in this thread is crazy

Re: Google Quantum AI

#48

Post by fooker »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #46
fooker wrote: post #15

The fact this prize exists is admitting that no one has figured out a use for quantum computers. I have heard this mentioned several times in the last decade or so : "The only thing a quantum computer definitively does better than a classical computer is simulating a quantum computer." Whether this capability is useful is up in the air. Note that in practice, classical computers are going to be better at factoring nu…

From Feynman's 1982 talk on quantum computing: "[N]ature isn't classical, dammit, and if you want to make a simulation of nature, you'd better make it quantum mechanical, and by golly it's a wonderful problem, because it doesn't look so easy." 0. https://s2.smu.edu/~mitch/class/5395/papers/feynman-quantum-...

You can simulate quantum mechanics with classical computers pretty well, as long as you stick to the copenhagen interpretation.

Re: Google Quantum AI

#49

Post by saagarjha »

Hewlberno wrote: post #47

The lack of knowledge and ignorance of quantum computing in this thread is incredible. Quantum computers do exist. They are extremely useful and do things that digital computers cannot do. Categorically cannot. The cynicism in this thread is crazy

Ok, how about listing some of the stuff they can do?

Re: Google Quantum AI

#50

Post by throwaway63467 »

fooker wrote: post #15

The fact this prize exists is admitting that no one has figured out a use for quantum computers. I have heard this mentioned several times in the last decade or so : "The only thing a quantum computer definitively does better than a classical computer is simulating a quantum computer." Whether this capability is useful is up in the air. Note that in practice, classical computers are going to be better at factoring nu…

The big one is simulation of quantum systems, I don’t get how that’s not enough by itself? Classical computers will never be able to simulate quantum systems efficiently so we need quantum computers for that. In general achieving arbitrary precision control of quantum states is something that will open avenues in many areas like sensing as well, so just from that angle alone a working quantum computer would open a new branch of technological progress.

But yeah it’s not guaranteed or even likely that quantum computers will be very useful for many computer science problems, though I’m also optimistic about that given the progress made in the last 30 years. Physics / science isn’t guaranteed to be easy or progress at a steady pace.

Post reply on HN