5 ms·

Has D-Wave made any actual feasible technical achievements WRT quantum computing or are they just the Theranos of that domain?

agumonkey 10y ago
Heh, harmless theranos.
dsacco 10y ago
It's hard to say. Industry experts like Scott Aaronson have gone back on forth with regards to whether or not it's 1) truly a quantum computer and 2) capable of real improvements over classical computers for anything nontrivial. Point #2 is perhaps more important for practical purposes. Aaronson is currently back in the skeptical camp after a brief stint of "cautious enthusiasm" in 2012. Umesh Vazirani, Aaronson's PhD advisor and the grandfather of quantum computing, has been largely dismissive of D-Wave and doesn't believe their computers will be capable of much even if they are truly quantum. The technology is apparently impressive enough that Google, NASA and Lockheed Martin have partnered with D-Wave to test its capabilities, but to date it has not done anything revolutionary. I'm sure they have done something, but it's not clear what trade secrets they have can be separated from marketing, and their public work has been reproduced on classical computers. There have also been a number of articles in Nature Physics, Science and elsewhere by different authors going back and forth on points 1 and 2 above. The current consensus is that D-Wave is not creating true quantum computers; but they have developed classical, pseudo-quantum computers with legitimate entanglement implemented, and which do not currently offer any real quantum speedup or improvement over classical computers. That said, I mostly follow quantum cryptography, so I haven't read this research in a while. I am personally happy that D-Wave exists and is trying to push forward the field - I think comparisons to Theranos are uncharitable. But I am skeptical of their real advancements. Edited to clarify after reviewing the research again.
- hannob 10y ago
  > That said, I mostly follow quantum cryptography, Which is also a field full of bullshit and nonsensical claims, and it still has to prove that it provides a solution for any real problem.
  - j1vms 10y ago
    If you're interested, the Quantum Key Distribution [0] sub-field has already likely bore fruit that is a "ready in the medium-term" useful solution to a real problem. It's probably already deployed somewhere in the national security/defense space. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_key_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_key_distribution
    - baobrien 10y ago
      DJB is still skeptical of Quantum Key Distribution. https://sidechannels.cr.yp.to/qkd/holographic-20160326.pdf https://sidechannels.cr.yp.to/qkd/holographic-20160326.pdf
    - hannob 10y ago
      Which problem exactly does QKD solve? (It is used by some banks afaik, but that it's used doesn't mean it solves any problem - it just means someone bought the marketing claims from ID Quantique and co)
      - j1vms 10y ago
        A quick response (so forgive the brevity): Let's say worst case, that a quantum computer does not currently exist, but its basic logical operation has been fleshed out to a reasonable extent. Now, what if a practical implementation shows up in the 5-10 yr timeline. The issue is that some quantum computers could, in theory, pose a real threat to many currently used classical encryption systems. QKD + one time pad could provide, in theory if not already also in practice, a reasonable stand-in solution to counter this perceived threat.
  - dsacco 10y ago
    This is not true. Quantum cryptography is frequently conflated with concepts that are not possible and don't make sense, but quantum key distribution is a legitimate area of research. In fact, it has already been experimentally implemented (Los Alamos, UCambridge, UGeneva, etc). It might not be mature enough yet for widespread adoption, and it doesn't revolutionize all parts of a cryprosystem, but it is definitely progress in the narrower problems of key distribution and perfect forward secrecy for one-time pads. Unless I'm misunderstanding you and what you mean is that the field has many people opportunistically using the term for marketing things that are not really quantum cryptography; if that's the case, I agree with you.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  > It's hard to say. Industry experts like Scott Aaronson have gone back on forth with regards to whether or not it's 1) truly a quantum computer and 2) capable of real improvements over classical computers for anything nontrivial. Point #2 is perhaps more important for practical purposes. I down-voted this. I have only a layman's understanding but from what I have read particularly #2 is demonstratively false, D-Wave has not achieved any improvements over classical computers for anything (including it's very own domain problem, which Alex Selby's classical algorithm outperforms D-Wave on). [0][1] [0] http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2555#comment-974407 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2555#comment-974407 [1] http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400
  - arcticfox 10y ago
    The parent said capable of real improvements over classical computers, not whether it has achieved it. Of course some hold the opinion that it's at least capable of it (Google, NASA, D-Wave employees) but the jury seems to remain out.
  - dsacco 10y ago
    I should clarify - I agree with you in that #2 is demonstrably false. But Aaronson has gone back and forth on his skepticism for D-Wave.[1] He is now rightfully back in the skeptical camp, however. My main point was that acknowledged experts have gone back and forth on this and there have been conflicting publications about D-Wave's computers. Now that I review the research again, it looks like it's been experimentally shown to have legitimate entanglement implemented in the computers, but the consensus is indeed that there is no quantum speed up or improvement or classical computers. Thanks for the reply though, I've edited the original comment. [1]: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=639 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=639
  - lohankin 10y ago
    No point to refer to "industry experts". Either data shows speedup, or it doesn't. Things will become clear after they release the next version [0]. If there's x1000 speedup, as claimed, it's a real deal, no matter if it's "really quantum" or otherwise. [0] http://www.dwavesys.com/media-coverage/techrepublic-quantum-leap-d-waves-next-quantum-computing-chip-offers-1000x-speed http://www.dwavesys.com/media-coverage/techrepublic-quantum-...
- idlewords 10y ago
  Scott Aaronson's posts on D-Wave are worth reading in full, including the discussion in the comments. He's a brilliant guy and his intellectual honesty is commendable. In other words, he's willing (and excited) to be proved wrong.
- kobeya 10y ago
  > The technology is apparently impressive enough that Google, NASA and Lockheed Martin have partnered with D-Wave to test its capabilities As someone who has actually worked in the research divisions of NASA and Lockheed, I wouldn't assign this form of social proof any value. There is absolutely nothing to infer from fact that NASA and Lockheed bought prototypes. I don't have personal experience with Google, but it is not unlikely that the same effects are at work.
paulsutter 10y ago
Google is having success with their DWave[1], test results on the Google Research blog[2]. [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/544276/google-says-it-has-proved-its-controversial-quantum-computer-really-works/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/544276/google-says-it-has..., "Google Says It Has Proved Its Controversial Quantum Computer Really Works" [2] https://research.googleblog.com/2015/12/when-can-quantum-annealing-win.html https://research.googleblog.com/2015/12/when-can-quantum-ann..., "Quantum annealing significantly outperforms its classical counterpart, simulated annealing. It is more than 10^8 times faster than simulated annealing running on a single core".
AndrewKemendo 10y ago
I was talking with D-Wave about a year ago about applying their system to some defense projects I was involved with and I went through some training with their systems integration team. The way their system seems to work is that you have to transform your problem set into a specific D-Wave function that will be topologically graphed into the D-Wave chipset. From there is finds the global minimum immediately. The challenge is really in having a problem that fits this type of transformation and doing it in a way that it's actually valuable. So it's quite a bit of work just to do the transform and we couldn't see an easy way to take some of our general problems and turn them into the graphs needed to work. In theory their stock functions seem easy to implement but when you investigate further it's a pretty narrow set of problems that fit.

agumonkey 10y ago

Heh, harmless theranos.

dsacco 10y ago

It's hard to say. Industry experts like Scott Aaronson have gone back on forth with regards to whether or not it's 1) truly a quantum computer and 2) capable of real improvements over classical computers for anything nontrivial. Point #2 is perhaps more important for practical purposes. Aaronson is currently back in the skeptical camp after a brief stint of "cautious enthusiasm" in 2012. Umesh Vazirani, Aaronson's PhD advisor and the grandfather of quantum computing, has been largely dismissive of D-Wave and doesn't believe their computers will be capable of much even if they are truly quantum. The technology is apparently impressive enough that Google, NASA and Lockheed Martin have partnered with D-Wave to test its capabilities, but to date it has not done anything revolutionary. I'm sure they have done something, but it's not clear what trade secrets they have can be separated from marketing, and their public work has been reproduced on classical computers. There have also been a number of articles in Nature Physics, Science and elsewhere by different authors going back and forth on points 1 and 2 above. The current consensus is that D-Wave is not creating true quantum computers; but they have developed classical, pseudo-quantum computers with legitimate entanglement implemented, and which do not currently offer any real quantum speedup or improvement over classical computers. That said, I mostly follow quantum cryptography, so I haven't read this research in a while. I am personally happy that D-Wave exists and is trying to push forward the field - I think comparisons to Theranos are uncharitable. But I am skeptical of their real advancements. Edited to clarify after reviewing the research again.

hannob 10y ago
> That said, I mostly follow quantum cryptography, Which is also a field full of bullshit and nonsensical claims, and it still has to prove that it provides a solution for any real problem.
- j1vms 10y ago
  If you're interested, the Quantum Key Distribution [0] sub-field has already likely bore fruit that is a "ready in the medium-term" useful solution to a real problem. It's probably already deployed somewhere in the national security/defense space. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_key_distribution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_key_distribution
  - baobrien 10y ago
    DJB is still skeptical of Quantum Key Distribution. https://sidechannels.cr.yp.to/qkd/holographic-20160326.pdf https://sidechannels.cr.yp.to/qkd/holographic-20160326.pdf
  - hannob 10y ago
    Which problem exactly does QKD solve? (It is used by some banks afaik, but that it's used doesn't mean it solves any problem - it just means someone bought the marketing claims from ID Quantique and co)
    - j1vms 10y ago
      A quick response (so forgive the brevity): Let's say worst case, that a quantum computer does not currently exist, but its basic logical operation has been fleshed out to a reasonable extent. Now, what if a practical implementation shows up in the 5-10 yr timeline. The issue is that some quantum computers could, in theory, pose a real threat to many currently used classical encryption systems. QKD + one time pad could provide, in theory if not already also in practice, a reasonable stand-in solution to counter this perceived threat.
- dsacco 10y ago
  This is not true. Quantum cryptography is frequently conflated with concepts that are not possible and don't make sense, but quantum key distribution is a legitimate area of research. In fact, it has already been experimentally implemented (Los Alamos, UCambridge, UGeneva, etc). It might not be mature enough yet for widespread adoption, and it doesn't revolutionize all parts of a cryprosystem, but it is definitely progress in the narrower problems of key distribution and perfect forward secrecy for one-time pads. Unless I'm misunderstanding you and what you mean is that the field has many people opportunistically using the term for marketing things that are not really quantum cryptography; if that's the case, I agree with you.
forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> It's hard to say. Industry experts like Scott Aaronson have gone back on forth with regards to whether or not it's 1) truly a quantum computer and 2) capable of real improvements over classical computers for anything nontrivial. Point #2 is perhaps more important for practical purposes. I down-voted this. I have only a layman's understanding but from what I have read particularly #2 is demonstratively false, D-Wave has not achieved any improvements over classical computers for anything (including it's very own domain problem, which Alex Selby's classical algorithm outperforms D-Wave on). [0][1] [0] http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2555#comment-974407 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2555#comment-974407 [1] http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400
- arcticfox 10y ago
  The parent said capable of real improvements over classical computers, not whether it has achieved it. Of course some hold the opinion that it's at least capable of it (Google, NASA, D-Wave employees) but the jury seems to remain out.
- dsacco 10y ago
  I should clarify - I agree with you in that #2 is demonstrably false. But Aaronson has gone back and forth on his skepticism for D-Wave.[1] He is now rightfully back in the skeptical camp, however. My main point was that acknowledged experts have gone back and forth on this and there have been conflicting publications about D-Wave's computers. Now that I review the research again, it looks like it's been experimentally shown to have legitimate entanglement implemented in the computers, but the consensus is indeed that there is no quantum speed up or improvement or classical computers. Thanks for the reply though, I've edited the original comment. [1]: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=639 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=639
- lohankin 10y ago
  No point to refer to "industry experts". Either data shows speedup, or it doesn't. Things will become clear after they release the next version [0]. If there's x1000 speedup, as claimed, it's a real deal, no matter if it's "really quantum" or otherwise. [0] http://www.dwavesys.com/media-coverage/techrepublic-quantum-leap-d-waves-next-quantum-computing-chip-offers-1000x-speed http://www.dwavesys.com/media-coverage/techrepublic-quantum-...
idlewords 10y ago
Scott Aaronson's posts on D-Wave are worth reading in full, including the discussion in the comments. He's a brilliant guy and his intellectual honesty is commendable. In other words, he's willing (and excited) to be proved wrong.
kobeya 10y ago
> The technology is apparently impressive enough that Google, NASA and Lockheed Martin have partnered with D-Wave to test its capabilities As someone who has actually worked in the research divisions of NASA and Lockheed, I wouldn't assign this form of social proof any value. There is absolutely nothing to infer from fact that NASA and Lockheed bought prototypes. I don't have personal experience with Google, but it is not unlikely that the same effects are at work.

paulsutter 10y ago

Google is having success with their DWave[1], test results on the Google Research blog[2]. [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/544276/google-says-it-has-proved-its-controversial-quantum-computer-really-works/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/544276/google-says-it-has..., "Google Says It Has Proved Its Controversial Quantum Computer Really Works" [2] https://research.googleblog.com/2015/12/when-can-quantum-annealing-win.html https://research.googleblog.com/2015/12/when-can-quantum-ann..., "Quantum annealing significantly outperforms its classical counterpart, simulated annealing. It is more than 10^8 times faster than simulated annealing running on a single core".

AndrewKemendo 10y ago

I was talking with D-Wave about a year ago about applying their system to some defense projects I was involved with and I went through some training with their systems integration team. The way their system seems to work is that you have to transform your problem set into a specific D-Wave function that will be topologically graphed into the D-Wave chipset. From there is finds the global minimum immediately. The challenge is really in having a problem that fits this type of transformation and doing it in a way that it's actually valuable. So it's quite a bit of work just to do the transform and we couldn't see an easy way to take some of our general problems and turn them into the graphs needed to work. In theory their stock functions seem easy to implement but when you investigate further it's a pretty narrow set of problems that fit.