5 ms·

Cue blog post by Scott Aaronson, will be interesting to hear his take on this.

• acqq 11y ago
  Just read older discussions, up to now they didn't even prove that they are faster than "conventional" computing. Is this now going to be faster?
  • wsha 11y ago
    According to Aaronson and others, the D-Wave architecture has not demonstrated any behavior that can't be explained using classical physics, so just making the device bigger shouldn't change it into a quantum device with a quantum speed up. That said -- who knows, maybe the architecture is different enough from everything else that it could be a better classical annealer than standard processors (though it's only ~1000 bits, so it probably can't outperform any conventional processor sold today with billions of bits).
    • Strilanc 11y ago
      > According to Aaronson and others, the D-Wave architecture has not demonstrated any behavior that can't be explained using classical physics That's not Scott's definitive opinion anymore. For example, from [1]: > Now, I’d say, D-Wave finally has cleared the evidence-for-entanglement bar—and, while they’re not the first to do so with superconducting qubits, they’re certainly the first to do so with so many superconducting qubits. [caveats about D-wave over-hyping and not having a demonstrated speedup yet] 1: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400
      • acqq 11y ago
        Yes, but no demonstrated speedup problem still remains.