12 ms·

First quantum computers need smart software

70 points by agronaut 9y ago

AlexCoventry 9y ago
IIRC, we were due for quantum supremacy by the end of the year. Are we still on track for that?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ToFab123 9y ago
  There will be 2 answers to that question and they will both be right and wrong at the same time :) Maybe not at the end of this year, but very soon, quantum supremacy will be claimed by one of companies that are developing a quantum computer similar to the d-wave computer used by Google and others. That is sort a single purpose computer that can only be used to perform a very limited set of work loads, but it still qualifies as a quantum computer, but will most like be a very limited in what it can do and how useful it will be. A few years later you will see quantum supremacy be claimed by one the companies trying to build a general purpose quantum computer like Microsoft. It is first then the quantum revolution will take off.
  - mtgx 9y ago
    Both Google and IBM are building general purpose computers not D-Wave-like quantum computers. They will likely both reach quantum supremacy before Microsoft, which itself has said could take another decade to make something useful out of its topological quantum computing architecture.
    - ToFab123 9y ago
      I have yet to come across articles or papers that indicate that Microsoft hasn't got a massive lead in developing a general purpose QC.
    - comicjk 9y ago
      Reinforcing this, the quantum state required for topological quantum computing (non-abelian anyons) has...never been proved to exist.
- akvadrako 9y ago
  Anybody who claims to know when we'll be able to build practical quantum computers doesn't know what they are talking about. Scaling is a very difficult problem.
  - eru 9y ago
    Quantum Supremacy doesn't require practical quantum computers. Special purpose quantum computers that can only do one task better than classical computers, even if that task is useless, meet the definition of quantum supremacy.
- Rexxar 9y ago
  Where does this ridiculous sounding term "quantum supremacy" comes from ?
  - eru 9y ago
    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy It wasn't named with political correctness in mind; but the naming makes sense from a technical point of view.
MeteorMarc 9y ago
Look here for a better informed source: https://www.osa-opn.org/home/articles/volume_27/october_2016/features/quantum_computing_how_close_are_we/ https://www.osa-opn.org/home/articles/volume_27/october_2016...
throwaway613834 9y ago
I somehow feel like quantum computing will forever remain a theory and never make it into practice. How much reason is there to believe that I might be wrong?
- e19293001 9y ago
  Very long time ago, talking to a person in real time 1000 miles away from you had been considered impossible.
  - throwaway613834 9y ago
    Sure, but even more recently than that, it was imagined we'd be in flying cars by now, but we aren't. That's not really an argument.
    - remline 9y ago
      Flying cars not existing has everything to do with the resources they use (public federally controlled airspace which requires every driver to be a pilot.) Quantum computers have the same barriers as other private space technology. The question to me is how long they will take to go from research toys to hobby toys which has a lot to do with cost and something to do with consumer safety.
      - throwaway613834 9y ago
        Actually I mentioned flying cars due to fuel inefficiency (I automatically assumed it was too low to make them practical) but I neglected to actually check their energy usage, and now that I just did it seems like the maximum efficiency could be on par with a normal car and it would depend on the actual trip, so my mistake on that. A better example might be artificial intelligence and the AI winters. Like the failure of machine translation despite high hopes in the 1960s. It took us some 50 years to get to where we are now with Google Translate, and it still only works well for some languages. I have no idea how close to human accuracy it will get, so I would neither be surprised if it never does, nor if it does someday. Anyway, hopefully instead of picking on the particular examples you can see that my point is obviously that people imagined we'd have a lot of things now that we still don't have the technology for today. So the fact that we've done amazing things in certain areas doesn't really say anything regarding this particular issue.
cortexio 9y ago
I still don't believe in quantum computers. Make something useful and i'll change my mind. Until then, gtfo.

70 points by agronaut 9y ago

AlexCoventry 9y ago

IIRC, we were due for quantum supremacy by the end of the year. Are we still on track for that?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ToFab123 9y ago
There will be 2 answers to that question and they will both be right and wrong at the same time :) Maybe not at the end of this year, but very soon, quantum supremacy will be claimed by one of companies that are developing a quantum computer similar to the d-wave computer used by Google and others. That is sort a single purpose computer that can only be used to perform a very limited set of work loads, but it still qualifies as a quantum computer, but will most like be a very limited in what it can do and how useful it will be. A few years later you will see quantum supremacy be claimed by one the companies trying to build a general purpose quantum computer like Microsoft. It is first then the quantum revolution will take off.
- mtgx 9y ago
  Both Google and IBM are building general purpose computers not D-Wave-like quantum computers. They will likely both reach quantum supremacy before Microsoft, which itself has said could take another decade to make something useful out of its topological quantum computing architecture.
  - ToFab123 9y ago
    I have yet to come across articles or papers that indicate that Microsoft hasn't got a massive lead in developing a general purpose QC.
  - comicjk 9y ago
    Reinforcing this, the quantum state required for topological quantum computing (non-abelian anyons) has...never been proved to exist.
akvadrako 9y ago
Anybody who claims to know when we'll be able to build practical quantum computers doesn't know what they are talking about. Scaling is a very difficult problem.
- eru 9y ago
  Quantum Supremacy doesn't require practical quantum computers. Special purpose quantum computers that can only do one task better than classical computers, even if that task is useless, meet the definition of quantum supremacy.
Rexxar 9y ago
Where does this ridiculous sounding term "quantum supremacy" comes from ?
- eru 9y ago
  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy It wasn't named with political correctness in mind; but the naming makes sense from a technical point of view.

MeteorMarc 9y ago

Look here for a better informed source: https://www.osa-opn.org/home/articles/volume_27/october_2016/features/quantum_computing_how_close_are_we/ https://www.osa-opn.org/home/articles/volume_27/october_2016...

throwaway613834 9y ago

I somehow feel like quantum computing will forever remain a theory and never make it into practice. How much reason is there to believe that I might be wrong?

e19293001 9y ago
Very long time ago, talking to a person in real time 1000 miles away from you had been considered impossible.
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  Sure, but even more recently than that, it was imagined we'd be in flying cars by now, but we aren't. That's not really an argument.
  - remline 9y ago
    Flying cars not existing has everything to do with the resources they use (public federally controlled airspace which requires every driver to be a pilot.) Quantum computers have the same barriers as other private space technology. The question to me is how long they will take to go from research toys to hobby toys which has a lot to do with cost and something to do with consumer safety.
    - throwaway613834 9y ago
      Actually I mentioned flying cars due to fuel inefficiency (I automatically assumed it was too low to make them practical) but I neglected to actually check their energy usage, and now that I just did it seems like the maximum efficiency could be on par with a normal car and it would depend on the actual trip, so my mistake on that. A better example might be artificial intelligence and the AI winters. Like the failure of machine translation despite high hopes in the 1960s. It took us some 50 years to get to where we are now with Google Translate, and it still only works well for some languages. I have no idea how close to human accuracy it will get, so I would neither be surprised if it never does, nor if it does someday. Anyway, hopefully instead of picking on the particular examples you can see that my point is obviously that people imagined we'd have a lot of things now that we still don't have the technology for today. So the fact that we've done amazing things in certain areas doesn't really say anything regarding this particular issue.

cortexio 9y ago

I still don't believe in quantum computers. Make something useful and i'll change my mind. Until then, gtfo.