12 ms·

As a software engineer looking for a highly marketable and differentiated skill set, given your projections for quantum computing roadmap, when should I start e

As a software engineer looking for a highly marketable and differentiated skill set, given your projections for quantum computing roadmap, when should I start exploring this area? (or: when should I start writing code and doing side projects)

reikonomusha 9y ago
Now. "Exponential" is faster than most people, including myself, can believe. When one unit of resource doubles your computational capacity, it doesn't take many units. I like to use the analogy. Adding 1 GB of RAM these days isn't that big of a deal. You can maybe open two more tabs in Chrome. :) Adding 1 giga-qubit to your computer would make it 4.6 x 10^301029995 times better. That's unimaginably more powerful than anything any human can think of. We don't have quantum software engineering figured out. And it's not going to be figured out by a few academics, although they may lay some good foundations. It's going to be figured out by the same folks who figured out traditional computing: people who try stuff, break stuff, and experiment.
- pieteradejong 9y ago
  what would be signs that this is taking off commercially? will explore the github repo!
  - reikonomusha 9y ago
    There are lots of "checkpoints" one can imagine with the commercialization of a technology. Right now, large industry players, whose survival depends on their tech strategy, are investing in quantum computer R&D. I don't mean that these companies are themselves trying to build quantum computers, but they are interested in applying them to their hardest technical problems. Quantum computation is such a new and different computing paradigm, that whoever is prepared will be able to reap the benefits much earlier. And, if the promises of scaling are true (they are from a fundamental physics standpoint), such companies will propel themselves far ahead of the competition. I would say that, in the current stage of development of quantum software and hardware, even a seasoned software professional will not—on short order—be able to apply the tools directly to their problems. As a programming language enthusiast, it's like taking a long-time K&R C programmer, and asking them to be productive in Agda. It's not that they can't, but they probably won't be able to do it by tomorrow. It'll take time, energy, and investment to think in new ways. I personally believe that commercialization will become more and more apparent when services are accelerated by quantum computation. But how many people are going to share that secret sauce?
    - scj 9y ago
      I'd hope one milestone is "Someone with no knowledge of physics, nor a desire gain any, is capable of programming with this hardware/software." Is that feasible? Is it desirable?
      - reikonomusha 9y ago
        That's my goal! It is desirable, and I think it is feasible. I said in another comment that I think the best thing we can do is get quantum devices in the hands of people and let them play. Unfortunately, for a long time, quantum computers and their programming have been so utterly out-of-reach and opaque that that has been difficult. Now I think we are taking good steps to opening the possibility of experimentation up.
        scj 9y ago
        Just to give you an idea, I've spent about 30-45 minutes reading over various materials (the Github links). I think my level of knowledge would be equivalent of understanding how dup, drop, and rot work in FORTH (or car and cdr in Lisp)... Basic element manipulation (bit/qubit, stack, and list). The difference though, is that I only needed to understand there was a container of multiple items in FORTH and Lisp. For basic element manipulation, I needed to understand matrices. At this rate, it would take hours before I understand how to write a basic program. And my trailblazer sense is already tingling (that I should let others be pioneers). Normally I'd just resume lurker mode at this point, but my interest in combinatorics is driving my curiosity towards understanding what might be possible.
        reikonomusha 9y ago
        I admit it is an unusually larger leap to get to anything useful. We have been blessed to have such a fantastic and intuitive understanding of classical computing. We can pick up most new programming languages gradually and efficiently. When the fundamental object of manipulation is this wacky thing called a "state vector in 2^n dimensional Hilbert space" as opposed to "a bag of bits", and operations must be reversible, and ... and ... and ..., things are just harder. I hope we (both Rigetti and the quantum computing community at large) can continue to refine and simplify the concepts at hand.
- semi-extrinsic 9y ago
  I disagree. Through Scott Aaronson's writings, I gather we still don't have conclusive evidence [1] that anyone's built an actual quantum computer capable of more sophisticated computations than a human 10-year-old can do with pen and paper, and furthermore that it's not clear we'll be able to build such a machine in our lifetimes. I'm not saying it's impossible, but we know it's going to be really hard. What you're ignoring with your exponential growth argument is that it is also exponentially harder to add one qubit while maintaining usefulness (i.e. long decoherence times). I'd say, anyone who doesn't want to work either in academia or on "vanity projects" like D-Wave's much-hyped collabs with Lockheed, Google etc. should wait half a decade and see. [1] Arguably the D-Wave machines are faster than a human, but we don't have evidence (yet) that it's not just a fancy annealing ASIC.
  - reikonomusha 9y ago
    I do not dispute the claim about the existence of a quantum computer which surpasses its classical brethren. Scott is correct. I do disagree that it is exponentially more difficult to add a qubit. Coherence times are something to optimize, and densely packing qubits is also difficult with coherence times, but the notion of adding a qubit to a system doesn't come with an inherent exponential difficulty. Regarding whether it is useful or not to learn quantum computing for your profession, if it's true that systems can be built that grow with exponential power, then they'll be relevant faster than one might think.
    - graphene 9y ago
      Isn't it true though that there would be an O(n^2)-type difficulty in adding extra qubits, since they all need to interact? Or is that an oversimplified view?
      - reikonomusha 9y ago
        They do not all need to interact directly with one another. You can create full entanglement even if they linearly interact. It just means you pay a penalty in the compilation of your program. Architectures with higher two-qubit connectivity is merely an optimization.
- algorias 9y ago
  > Now. "Exponential" is faster than most people, including myself, can believe. When one unit of resource doubles your computational capacity, it doesn't take many units. Please don't make bullshit claims about exponential speedups. I don't know exactly what technology you are claiming to have, but statements like this cause me to believe less in your technology, not more. We've been through the cycle of unfounded hype many times (with D-WAVE and others). Scott Aaronson has an entire category on his blog filled with depressingly many posts debunking the same bullshit over and over [0]. [0] http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?cat=17 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?cat=17
  - reikonomusha 9y ago
    The size of the state space in which the qubits live is exponential in the number of qubits. This is because the qubits live in an n-fold tensor product of two-dimensional Hilbert spaces. Performing an operation on a single qubit is the same as performing a 2^n-dimensional unitary transformation on the state of the system. This is not disagreed by experts in the field of quantum computing, including Scott.
    - petters 9y ago
      But you said "When one unit of resource doubles your computational capacity" which I believe is what your parent comment rightly called bullshit.
    - algorias 9y ago
      I know what a Hilbert space is, and I also know that this 2^n-dimensional space cannot be accessed except through a destructive measurement operation. An exponential state space does not imply that there is exponential computing power to be harnessed there. As an analogy, when you execute a randomized classical algorithm, the size of the state space in which the bits live is also exponential (and at the end you observe the result, and your uncertainty collapses from a probability distribution to one of its possible outcomes). Yet you would look at me like I'm crazy (or a fraud) if I claimed that randomized algorithms have exponentially more computing power than deterministic ones. The only way in which the quantum case differs from the classical picture above, is that amplitudes have a phase and can thus interfere (constructively or destructively). The art of creating quantum algorithm lies entirely in orchestrating favorable interference patterns.
- petters 9y ago
  > Adding 1 giga-qubit to your computer would make it 4.6 x 10^301029995 times better. That's unimaginably more powerful than anything any human can think of That's not true and you should know better. For example, there are very few problem for which quantum computers are known to perform better than standard computers.
  - reikonomusha 9y ago
    It is true that I am not being mathematically precise in my statements. The precise way to say what I said is: In order to represent completely an arbitrary state in the space of one billion qubits, you will need a number of bytes exponential in that number of qubits. If we have, as mathematical entities, one billion additional qubits, this will be equivalent to increasing the dimension of our existing system by 2^(1 billion) times. Of course, I am saying "mathematical entities", and almost all practitioners of quantum computing are aware of the challenge to actually build them.
  - cgmg 9y ago
    > there are very few problem for which quantum computers are known to perform better than standard computers. http://math.nist.gov/quantum/zoo/ http://math.nist.gov/quantum/zoo/
    - petters 9y ago
      That is a great list! (But I don't think it contradicts what I wrote)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- obastani 9y ago
  Unlike adding RAM, adding each extra qubit is also exponentially harder, since maintaining coherence of all the qubits becomes more and more difficult. That's why scaling from the tiny quantum computers we have today (which are not useful) to a useful quantum computer remains a decades long research agenda.
  - YCode 9y ago
    You might take a look at this other reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14598516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14598516

reikonomusha 9y ago

Now. "Exponential" is faster than most people, including myself, can believe. When one unit of resource doubles your computational capacity, it doesn't take many units. I like to use the analogy. Adding 1 GB of RAM these days isn't that big of a deal. You can maybe open two more tabs in Chrome. :) Adding 1 giga-qubit to your computer would make it 4.6 x 10^301029995 times better. That's unimaginably more powerful than anything any human can think of. We don't have quantum software engineering figured out. And it's not going to be figured out by a few academics, although they may lay some good foundations. It's going to be figured out by the same folks who figured out traditional computing: people who try stuff, break stuff, and experiment.

pieteradejong 9y ago
what would be signs that this is taking off commercially? will explore the github repo!
- reikonomusha 9y ago
  There are lots of "checkpoints" one can imagine with the commercialization of a technology. Right now, large industry players, whose survival depends on their tech strategy, are investing in quantum computer R&D. I don't mean that these companies are themselves trying to build quantum computers, but they are interested in applying them to their hardest technical problems. Quantum computation is such a new and different computing paradigm, that whoever is prepared will be able to reap the benefits much earlier. And, if the promises of scaling are true (they are from a fundamental physics standpoint), such companies will propel themselves far ahead of the competition. I would say that, in the current stage of development of quantum software and hardware, even a seasoned software professional will not—on short order—be able to apply the tools directly to their problems. As a programming language enthusiast, it's like taking a long-time K&R C programmer, and asking them to be productive in Agda. It's not that they can't, but they probably won't be able to do it by tomorrow. It'll take time, energy, and investment to think in new ways. I personally believe that commercialization will become more and more apparent when services are accelerated by quantum computation. But how many people are going to share that secret sauce?
  - scj 9y ago
    I'd hope one milestone is "Someone with no knowledge of physics, nor a desire gain any, is capable of programming with this hardware/software." Is that feasible? Is it desirable?
    - reikonomusha 9y ago
      That's my goal! It is desirable, and I think it is feasible. I said in another comment that I think the best thing we can do is get quantum devices in the hands of people and let them play. Unfortunately, for a long time, quantum computers and their programming have been so utterly out-of-reach and opaque that that has been difficult. Now I think we are taking good steps to opening the possibility of experimentation up.
      - scj 9y ago
        Just to give you an idea, I've spent about 30-45 minutes reading over various materials (the Github links). I think my level of knowledge would be equivalent of understanding how dup, drop, and rot work in FORTH (or car and cdr in Lisp)... Basic element manipulation (bit/qubit, stack, and list). The difference though, is that I only needed to understand there was a container of multiple items in FORTH and Lisp. For basic element manipulation, I needed to understand matrices. At this rate, it would take hours before I understand how to write a basic program. And my trailblazer sense is already tingling (that I should let others be pioneers). Normally I'd just resume lurker mode at this point, but my interest in combinatorics is driving my curiosity towards understanding what might be possible.
        reikonomusha 9y ago
        I admit it is an unusually larger leap to get to anything useful. We have been blessed to have such a fantastic and intuitive understanding of classical computing. We can pick up most new programming languages gradually and efficiently. When the fundamental object of manipulation is this wacky thing called a "state vector in 2^n dimensional Hilbert space" as opposed to "a bag of bits", and operations must be reversible, and ... and ... and ..., things are just harder. I hope we (both Rigetti and the quantum computing community at large) can continue to refine and simplify the concepts at hand.
semi-extrinsic 9y ago
I disagree. Through Scott Aaronson's writings, I gather we still don't have conclusive evidence [1] that anyone's built an actual quantum computer capable of more sophisticated computations than a human 10-year-old can do with pen and paper, and furthermore that it's not clear we'll be able to build such a machine in our lifetimes. I'm not saying it's impossible, but we know it's going to be really hard. What you're ignoring with your exponential growth argument is that it is also exponentially harder to add one qubit while maintaining usefulness (i.e. long decoherence times). I'd say, anyone who doesn't want to work either in academia or on "vanity projects" like D-Wave's much-hyped collabs with Lockheed, Google etc. should wait half a decade and see. [1] Arguably the D-Wave machines are faster than a human, but we don't have evidence (yet) that it's not just a fancy annealing ASIC.
- reikonomusha 9y ago
  I do not dispute the claim about the existence of a quantum computer which surpasses its classical brethren. Scott is correct. I do disagree that it is exponentially more difficult to add a qubit. Coherence times are something to optimize, and densely packing qubits is also difficult with coherence times, but the notion of adding a qubit to a system doesn't come with an inherent exponential difficulty. Regarding whether it is useful or not to learn quantum computing for your profession, if it's true that systems can be built that grow with exponential power, then they'll be relevant faster than one might think.
  - graphene 9y ago
    Isn't it true though that there would be an O(n^2)-type difficulty in adding extra qubits, since they all need to interact? Or is that an oversimplified view?
    - reikonomusha 9y ago
      They do not all need to interact directly with one another. You can create full entanglement even if they linearly interact. It just means you pay a penalty in the compilation of your program. Architectures with higher two-qubit connectivity is merely an optimization.
algorias 9y ago
> Now. "Exponential" is faster than most people, including myself, can believe. When one unit of resource doubles your computational capacity, it doesn't take many units. Please don't make bullshit claims about exponential speedups. I don't know exactly what technology you are claiming to have, but statements like this cause me to believe less in your technology, not more. We've been through the cycle of unfounded hype many times (with D-WAVE and others). Scott Aaronson has an entire category on his blog filled with depressingly many posts debunking the same bullshit over and over [0]. [0] http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?cat=17 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?cat=17
- reikonomusha 9y ago
  The size of the state space in which the qubits live is exponential in the number of qubits. This is because the qubits live in an n-fold tensor product of two-dimensional Hilbert spaces. Performing an operation on a single qubit is the same as performing a 2^n-dimensional unitary transformation on the state of the system. This is not disagreed by experts in the field of quantum computing, including Scott.
  - petters 9y ago
    But you said "When one unit of resource doubles your computational capacity" which I believe is what your parent comment rightly called bullshit.
  - algorias 9y ago
    I know what a Hilbert space is, and I also know that this 2^n-dimensional space cannot be accessed except through a destructive measurement operation. An exponential state space does not imply that there is exponential computing power to be harnessed there. As an analogy, when you execute a randomized classical algorithm, the size of the state space in which the bits live is also exponential (and at the end you observe the result, and your uncertainty collapses from a probability distribution to one of its possible outcomes). Yet you would look at me like I'm crazy (or a fraud) if I claimed that randomized algorithms have exponentially more computing power than deterministic ones. The only way in which the quantum case differs from the classical picture above, is that amplitudes have a phase and can thus interfere (constructively or destructively). The art of creating quantum algorithm lies entirely in orchestrating favorable interference patterns.
petters 9y ago
> Adding 1 giga-qubit to your computer would make it 4.6 x 10^301029995 times better. That's unimaginably more powerful than anything any human can think of That's not true and you should know better. For example, there are very few problem for which quantum computers are known to perform better than standard computers.
- reikonomusha 9y ago
  It is true that I am not being mathematically precise in my statements. The precise way to say what I said is: In order to represent completely an arbitrary state in the space of one billion qubits, you will need a number of bytes exponential in that number of qubits. If we have, as mathematical entities, one billion additional qubits, this will be equivalent to increasing the dimension of our existing system by 2^(1 billion) times. Of course, I am saying "mathematical entities", and almost all practitioners of quantum computing are aware of the challenge to actually build them.
- cgmg 9y ago
  > there are very few problem for which quantum computers are known to perform better than standard computers. http://math.nist.gov/quantum/zoo/ http://math.nist.gov/quantum/zoo/
  - petters 9y ago
    That is a great list! (But I don't think it contradicts what I wrote)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
obastani 9y ago
Unlike adding RAM, adding each extra qubit is also exponentially harder, since maintaining coherence of all the qubits becomes more and more difficult. That's why scaling from the tiny quantum computers we have today (which are not useful) to a useful quantum computer remains a decades long research agenda.
- YCode 9y ago
  You might take a look at this other reply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14598516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14598516