5 ms·

These d-wave guys are the greatest scam geniuses in history. First they make a "quantum computer" and now they're building trainable exo-suits. I don't even kno

by _qc3o 10y ago

These d-wave guys are the greatest scam geniuses in history. First they make a "quantum computer" and now they're building trainable exo-suits. I don't even know where they come up with this stuff.

zxcvvcxz 10y ago
I'm going to have to ask you to expand on this comment and provide some context for why you think they're "scam geniuses"?
- zazen 10y ago
  There is more-thoughtful discussion of the D-wave controversy in this thread - look for dsacco's comments.
- dkarapetyan 10y ago
  They have consistently dodged providing any kind of real evidence and managed to survive this far purely on marketing hype. I think someone recently posted about the Bogdanov affair. D-wave is the analog of the Bogdanov affair for quantum computers.
- ThePhysicist 10y ago
  So far D-Wave has failed to provide any direct or indirect evidence that their "quantum computer" actually achieves quantum speed up. An investigation by a scientist from ETH Zurich who was able to use their machine came to the conclusion that their quantum algorithm does not outperform a classical system. It's hard to think of a reason to refuse to publicly prove that your quantum computer is actually working if it really is, if it isn't it makes a lot of sense of course. Concerning the purchases of Google and the US government: These are probably more like research grants for D-Wave, as the buyers expect that at some time there might come a working quantum computer from D-Wave, and buying a prototype (even a faulty one) puts them in a good position to be the first to actually get a working version, while helping the company to stay afloat. By the way, Google invested 200 million USD in a different quantum computing technology endeavour led by a UC Santa Barbara professor, which would make little sense if they already had a working quantum computer. The value of D-Wave as a company is not only defined by their ability to build a working quantum computer though, as there could be significant value in the patent portfolio they built / acquired and in their expertise in building and assembling superconducting chips and systems, which are both highly non-trivial tasks. Their way of communicating with the public is of course highly misleading, which is why many people in the scientific community have very little respect for them, as this is viewed as highly unethical and harmful behavior in science (but not necessarily in the business world).
  - eghad 10y ago
    The UCSB professor you're referring to is John Martinis [0] and though the physical structure differs (they're using small arrays of "Xmons" instead of typical transmons qubits to minimize decoherence and thus error) they're still working within the realm of adiabatic quantum computing/quantum annealing, the same general avenue D-Wave is pursuing (with a "digital" twist) which is why Google invested in both of them. [0] http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/publications.shtml http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/publications.shtm... [1] https://research.googleblog.com/2016/06/quantum-annealing-with-digital-twist.html https://research.googleblog.com/2016/06/quantum-annealing-wi...
    - ThePhysicist 10y ago
      Sorry that's just not correct (to my knowledge at least), as John was always working on gate-based quantum computing and is currently pursuing designs based on resonator-coupled Transmon qubits (the X-mon refers to the geometry of the qubits, which provide four capacitive ports to couple them to resonators and fast flux lines). The next milestone for their collaboration is the demonstration of "quantum superiority" using a 40(-ish) qubit processor to perform an algorithm that is beyond the reach of current supercomputers. The real effort comes afterwards though as the system needs to be scaled up in order to be useful in any real-world task. The quantum annealing example from the Google research blog seems to use normal quantum gates to simulate the nearest-neighbor interactions in a spin chain. The nature article is currently down but it seems they use "Trotterization" to simulate the spin chain using one- and two-qubits gates.
      - eghad 10y ago
        It is indeed, correct. The annealing example I linked is from his team (here's another one with full citation with Martinis at the end there [0]). And if you want further proof that Martinis and the Google Quantum team are pursing quantum annealing look no further than the Adiabtic Quantum Computing Conference that was held this summer where their team held several talks including "Building Quantum Annealer v2.0" [1]. And I didn't touch on your earlier (erroneous) comment on the scientific community's perception of D-Wave, but I think it needs to be said that in actual professional circles the research they're performing isn't met with as much derision as they seem to garner in these more causally informed settings. It's hyped and a difficult subject to understand, so that's fair, but I suggest really informing yourself if you're going to go out there and make the claims you're making. [0] http://research.google.com/pubs/pub44292.html http://research.google.com/pubs/pub44292.html [1] https://aqccreg2016.eventfarm.com/events/index/7fff5387-0000-456c-a4da-3f0389a7aa72?page=7fff46cb-0000-456c-a4da-4701510cb78d https://aqccreg2016.eventfarm.com/events/index/7fff5387-0000... http://1qbit.com/insights-inside-googles-annual-adiabatic-quantum-computing-conference/ http://1qbit.com/insights-inside-googles-annual-adiabatic-qu... [2] (Another article reviewing QA with Martinis and team) http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02206 http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02206
kensai 10y ago
So the high profile customers (US government among them) have fallen for some tech con artists, right?
- dkarapetyan 10y ago
  This is a common fallacy. The US government is not that great at decision making actually. Mistakes abound and not just tiny mistakes but mistakes that consistently cost billions. The history of the fighter jet program is quite interesting in that regard. The healthcare.gov debacle is another recent example. I mean this isn't a ding against the government. Any large enough organization is terrible at making good decisions consistently. So just because the government and some other high profile people have invested in d-wave doesn't lend them any more credibility in my opinion. The other high profile guys I'm assuming you mean are Google and IBM. It would be interesting to know how d-wave "quantum computers" have actually made any kind of dent in their respective companies other than pure marketing hype so that they can say they have "quantum computers".
  - gumby 10y ago
    It's perfectly reasonable for a large organization like some part of the USG or Google or IBM to simply buy one to see what it's like. If there actually is a there there (perhaps even one not known to the developers) they can learn something. And if there's something real (even if not useful) they can gain a leg up on users of the next generation system, perhaps from a different company who actually does know what they're doing. And if it is a flop, well, the marginal cost is pretty minor. When I was at MIT we bought all sorts of crazy things some of which turned out to be useful in unexpected ways once you actually had the equipment in your hands. A good example of this was the EmDrive which really seemed like a scam to me but might have a there there. I wouldn't have believed it at all except that NASA, a seemingly independent organization where this is concerned, saw enough that it's apparently worth looking further. If it had been the 100% scam I assumed (and that's still not clear) I'd still be OK with the money spent. At the moment I still don't believe D-Wave and dinnertime discussions with friends at Google have not caused me to change my opinion.
logicallee 10y ago
this is gratuitously negative and against HN policies and you should not write comments like this here (especially using the word scam). a neutral phrasing might be "I believe that the D-Wave guys do not themselves believe in their innovations, and are perpetrating what would otherwise be considered scams." Please bear in mind that Google as well as NASA have bought D-Wave computers. Whether the effect is real or not, they do not exactly transfer money to scammers, and are not easy, unsophisticated "marks" (targets of scammers.) "Hey Google, it's your cousin!" is not how these sales take place. Use of a word like scam is inappropriate, especially given that sales have been made, and the ordered equipment has been delivered and is being used. (By people who run Google and who send things to space.) Please be a bit more judicious in your phrasing.
- dkarapetyan 10y ago
  Have you ever been involved in an M&A meeting? You'd be surprised how often "Hey Google, it's your cousin!" kinda thing actually happens. I'm surprised by the amount of faith and assumed competence on the part of these organizations among the HN crowd. The comments I'm seeing as response I agree don't seem to be conducive to an actual discussion so I'll rephrase but the point about the intelligence and infallible decision making abilities of the large organization being used as counterclaims do not really add up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is the usual bar for claims that go above and beyond current state of the art and science. D-wave has consistently failed in that regard. I find their approach unscientific and unethical for the kinds of claims they are making for whatever technology they have sold to whatever organizations. In the long run no one wins when such tactics are used.
  - logicallee 10y ago
    Oh, all I meant with my exmaples is that it should be enough for you to pause to phrase judiciously and carefully, for good discussion here. Unfortunately I think you're outside of the edit window though. the phrasing you just used (in your second, longer paragraph) is fine to me! It should have been your original phrasing (both IMO and by HN guidelines.) Thanks for following up.

by _qc3o 10y ago

These d-wave guys are the greatest scam geniuses in history. First they make a "quantum computer" and now they're building trainable exo-suits. I don't even know where they come up with this stuff.

zxcvvcxz 10y ago

I'm going to have to ask you to expand on this comment and provide some context for why you think they're "scam geniuses"?

zazen 10y ago
There is more-thoughtful discussion of the D-wave controversy in this thread - look for dsacco's comments.
dkarapetyan 10y ago
They have consistently dodged providing any kind of real evidence and managed to survive this far purely on marketing hype. I think someone recently posted about the Bogdanov affair. D-wave is the analog of the Bogdanov affair for quantum computers.
ThePhysicist 10y ago
So far D-Wave has failed to provide any direct or indirect evidence that their "quantum computer" actually achieves quantum speed up. An investigation by a scientist from ETH Zurich who was able to use their machine came to the conclusion that their quantum algorithm does not outperform a classical system. It's hard to think of a reason to refuse to publicly prove that your quantum computer is actually working if it really is, if it isn't it makes a lot of sense of course. Concerning the purchases of Google and the US government: These are probably more like research grants for D-Wave, as the buyers expect that at some time there might come a working quantum computer from D-Wave, and buying a prototype (even a faulty one) puts them in a good position to be the first to actually get a working version, while helping the company to stay afloat. By the way, Google invested 200 million USD in a different quantum computing technology endeavour led by a UC Santa Barbara professor, which would make little sense if they already had a working quantum computer. The value of D-Wave as a company is not only defined by their ability to build a working quantum computer though, as there could be significant value in the patent portfolio they built / acquired and in their expertise in building and assembling superconducting chips and systems, which are both highly non-trivial tasks. Their way of communicating with the public is of course highly misleading, which is why many people in the scientific community have very little respect for them, as this is viewed as highly unethical and harmful behavior in science (but not necessarily in the business world).
- eghad 10y ago
  The UCSB professor you're referring to is John Martinis [0] and though the physical structure differs (they're using small arrays of "Xmons" instead of typical transmons qubits to minimize decoherence and thus error) they're still working within the realm of adiabatic quantum computing/quantum annealing, the same general avenue D-Wave is pursuing (with a "digital" twist) which is why Google invested in both of them. [0] http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/publications.shtml http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/publications.shtm... [1] https://research.googleblog.com/2016/06/quantum-annealing-with-digital-twist.html https://research.googleblog.com/2016/06/quantum-annealing-wi...
  - ThePhysicist 10y ago
    Sorry that's just not correct (to my knowledge at least), as John was always working on gate-based quantum computing and is currently pursuing designs based on resonator-coupled Transmon qubits (the X-mon refers to the geometry of the qubits, which provide four capacitive ports to couple them to resonators and fast flux lines). The next milestone for their collaboration is the demonstration of "quantum superiority" using a 40(-ish) qubit processor to perform an algorithm that is beyond the reach of current supercomputers. The real effort comes afterwards though as the system needs to be scaled up in order to be useful in any real-world task. The quantum annealing example from the Google research blog seems to use normal quantum gates to simulate the nearest-neighbor interactions in a spin chain. The nature article is currently down but it seems they use "Trotterization" to simulate the spin chain using one- and two-qubits gates.
    - eghad 10y ago
      It is indeed, correct. The annealing example I linked is from his team (here's another one with full citation with Martinis at the end there [0]). And if you want further proof that Martinis and the Google Quantum team are pursing quantum annealing look no further than the Adiabtic Quantum Computing Conference that was held this summer where their team held several talks including "Building Quantum Annealer v2.0" [1]. And I didn't touch on your earlier (erroneous) comment on the scientific community's perception of D-Wave, but I think it needs to be said that in actual professional circles the research they're performing isn't met with as much derision as they seem to garner in these more causally informed settings. It's hyped and a difficult subject to understand, so that's fair, but I suggest really informing yourself if you're going to go out there and make the claims you're making. [0] http://research.google.com/pubs/pub44292.html http://research.google.com/pubs/pub44292.html [1] https://aqccreg2016.eventfarm.com/events/index/7fff5387-0000-456c-a4da-3f0389a7aa72?page=7fff46cb-0000-456c-a4da-4701510cb78d https://aqccreg2016.eventfarm.com/events/index/7fff5387-0000... http://1qbit.com/insights-inside-googles-annual-adiabatic-quantum-computing-conference/ http://1qbit.com/insights-inside-googles-annual-adiabatic-qu... [2] (Another article reviewing QA with Martinis and team) http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02206 http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02206

kensai 10y ago

So the high profile customers (US government among them) have fallen for some tech con artists, right?

dkarapetyan 10y ago
This is a common fallacy. The US government is not that great at decision making actually. Mistakes abound and not just tiny mistakes but mistakes that consistently cost billions. The history of the fighter jet program is quite interesting in that regard. The healthcare.gov debacle is another recent example. I mean this isn't a ding against the government. Any large enough organization is terrible at making good decisions consistently. So just because the government and some other high profile people have invested in d-wave doesn't lend them any more credibility in my opinion. The other high profile guys I'm assuming you mean are Google and IBM. It would be interesting to know how d-wave "quantum computers" have actually made any kind of dent in their respective companies other than pure marketing hype so that they can say they have "quantum computers".
- gumby 10y ago
  It's perfectly reasonable for a large organization like some part of the USG or Google or IBM to simply buy one to see what it's like. If there actually is a there there (perhaps even one not known to the developers) they can learn something. And if there's something real (even if not useful) they can gain a leg up on users of the next generation system, perhaps from a different company who actually does know what they're doing. And if it is a flop, well, the marginal cost is pretty minor. When I was at MIT we bought all sorts of crazy things some of which turned out to be useful in unexpected ways once you actually had the equipment in your hands. A good example of this was the EmDrive which really seemed like a scam to me but might have a there there. I wouldn't have believed it at all except that NASA, a seemingly independent organization where this is concerned, saw enough that it's apparently worth looking further. If it had been the 100% scam I assumed (and that's still not clear) I'd still be OK with the money spent. At the moment I still don't believe D-Wave and dinnertime discussions with friends at Google have not caused me to change my opinion.

logicallee 10y ago

this is gratuitously negative and against HN policies and you should not write comments like this here (especially using the word scam). a neutral phrasing might be "I believe that the D-Wave guys do not themselves believe in their innovations, and are perpetrating what would otherwise be considered scams." Please bear in mind that Google as well as NASA have bought D-Wave computers. Whether the effect is real or not, they do not exactly transfer money to scammers, and are not easy, unsophisticated "marks" (targets of scammers.) "Hey Google, it's your cousin!" is not how these sales take place. Use of a word like scam is inappropriate, especially given that sales have been made, and the ordered equipment has been delivered and is being used. (By people who run Google and who send things to space.) Please be a bit more judicious in your phrasing.

dkarapetyan 10y ago
Have you ever been involved in an M&A meeting? You'd be surprised how often "Hey Google, it's your cousin!" kinda thing actually happens. I'm surprised by the amount of faith and assumed competence on the part of these organizations among the HN crowd. The comments I'm seeing as response I agree don't seem to be conducive to an actual discussion so I'll rephrase but the point about the intelligence and infallible decision making abilities of the large organization being used as counterclaims do not really add up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is the usual bar for claims that go above and beyond current state of the art and science. D-wave has consistently failed in that regard. I find their approach unscientific and unethical for the kinds of claims they are making for whatever technology they have sold to whatever organizations. In the long run no one wins when such tactics are used.
- logicallee 10y ago
  Oh, all I meant with my exmaples is that it should be enough for you to pause to phrase judiciously and carefully, for good discussion here. Unfortunately I think you're outside of the edit window though. the phrasing you just used (in your second, longer paragraph) is fine to me! It should have been your original phrasing (both IMO and by HN guidelines.) Thanks for following up.