5 ms·

I'm happy that the title doesn't call the D-Wave a quantum computer (as is frequently done), as it's not a quantum computer in the sense that people mean when t

I'm happy that the title doesn't call the D-Wave a quantum computer (as is frequently done), as it's not a quantum computer in the sense that people mean when they say quantum computer. Unfortunately D-Wave is referred to as a quantum computer within the article several times. D-Wave have called themselves a quantum computer for such a long time (prompting many others to call them out, e.g. Scott Aaronson [1], VentureBeat [2], Physics World [3], Ars Technica [4], Wired [5], and on and on) that I am now extremely skeptical of any result that features D-Wave. The last time I checked (which was a few years ago), it was much faster to simulate magnetic annealing on classical machines than to use the D-Wave --- and this is precisely what D-Wave is designed to do. I wonder whether this has changed? It is hard to quickly check this now amidst the large amount of articles decrying D-Wave for calling themselves a quantum computer. Towards the end of this article it is noted that several "classical" machine algorithms were also used and these produced essentially the same results. I think the question of whether one could somehow perform better or faster machine learning, or to write a 'quantum evolutionary algorithm' that perhaps converges to something better faster, is an interesting question. I haven't thought about this before. [1]: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400 [2]: https://venturebeat.com/2013/12/27/d-wave-a-multimillion-dollar-sham-or-quantum-breakthrough-interview/ https://venturebeat.com/2013/12/27/d-wave-a-multimillion-dol... [3]: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jun/20/is-d-wave-quantum-computer-actually-a-quantum-computer http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jun/20/is-d-wa... [4]: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/is-d-waves-quantum-processor-really-10%E2%81%B8-times-faster-than-a-normal-computer/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/02/is-d-waves-quantum-p... [5]: https://www.wired.com/2014/05/quantum-computing/ https://www.wired.com/2014/05/quantum-computing/ [6]: https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v550/n7676/full/nature24047.html https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v550/n7676/full/nature...

flotillo 9y ago
Indeed, and I think it's quite telling that the founder of D-Wave, along with some former D-Wave employees, have given up on their vision of quantum computing and are focusing their efforts on making industrial robots instead.
- noahmbarr 9y ago
  This is a misleading statement. D-Wave has/had several co-founders. One has left to start Kindred.
codekilla 9y ago
It's true that there is a distinction between a quantum computer build using a universal set of gates(what you probably mean), and one that uses the adiabatic model to carry out computations. The former, is difficult to construct due to decoherence, while the latter carries out computations in the ground state, neatly sidestepping the issue. Saying the D-wave computer is not a quantum computer simply because it does not use a universal set of gates is patently false, it uses a different, more restricted model true, but one that still exploits the resources of the quantum realm to carry out computations. It's also true that theoretically, the adiabatic model is less developed, and thus supremacy arguments are more difficult to make, but as long as quantum effects(i.e. superposition, entanglement, etc) are used to carry out computations, it is a quantum computer. > The last time I checked (which was a few years ago) A lot has changed.
- whyever 9y ago
  > A lot has changed. Could you please give some examples?
- kamilner 9y ago
  The D-Wave machine is not a full adiabatic quantum computer, though (which would be polynomially equivalent to a universal quantum computer). It does quantum annealing over a pretty restricted set of Hamiltonians. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say it is not a quantum computer, in the same way that not everything performing computation is called a computer. Otherwise---taken to the absurd---why not call a chemist's beaker a quantum computer?
  - mabbo 9y ago
    It's a computing machine taking advantage of certain quantum effects to do computing. Theoretically, it may be able to do certain tasks faster than a traditional computer I'm not saying you're wrong- it's often mislabeled as a quantum computer- but it isn't fair to say it's no better than a chemist's beaker.
    - deepnotderp 9y ago
rainbowmverse 9y ago
>> It is hard to quickly check this now amidst the large amount of articles decrying D-Wave for calling themselves a quantum computer. Tip for quickly getting past all the irrelevant results in Google when you're searching for something specific: click the 10th page of results and start from there. You'll trigger their bot check more often because it's unusual to them that you actually want to know about the specific thing you're looking up instead of seeing 100 identical blog posts/news articles on the subject.
- Arelius 9y ago
  Sorry, but could you go into a bit more detail on how triggering a bot check is supposed to help get past the irrelevant results? I'm not sure I understand.
  - rainbowmverse 9y ago
    The bot check is just a thing that happens more. I seem to get it every few pages when digging deep down in results.
- posterboy 9y ago
  to get into the specifics, you probably need to study accordingly for a while. NLab has linked some sources https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/quantum+computation https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/quantum+computation

flotillo 9y ago

Indeed, and I think it's quite telling that the founder of D-Wave, along with some former D-Wave employees, have given up on their vision of quantum computing and are focusing their efforts on making industrial robots instead.

noahmbarr 9y ago
This is a misleading statement. D-Wave has/had several co-founders. One has left to start Kindred.

codekilla 9y ago

It's true that there is a distinction between a quantum computer build using a universal set of gates(what you probably mean), and one that uses the adiabatic model to carry out computations. The former, is difficult to construct due to decoherence, while the latter carries out computations in the ground state, neatly sidestepping the issue. Saying the D-wave computer is not a quantum computer simply because it does not use a universal set of gates is patently false, it uses a different, more restricted model true, but one that still exploits the resources of the quantum realm to carry out computations. It's also true that theoretically, the adiabatic model is less developed, and thus supremacy arguments are more difficult to make, but as long as quantum effects(i.e. superposition, entanglement, etc) are used to carry out computations, it is a quantum computer. > The last time I checked (which was a few years ago) A lot has changed.

whyever 9y ago
> A lot has changed. Could you please give some examples?
kamilner 9y ago
The D-Wave machine is not a full adiabatic quantum computer, though (which would be polynomially equivalent to a universal quantum computer). It does quantum annealing over a pretty restricted set of Hamiltonians. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say it is not a quantum computer, in the same way that not everything performing computation is called a computer. Otherwise---taken to the absurd---why not call a chemist's beaker a quantum computer?
- mabbo 9y ago
  It's a computing machine taking advantage of certain quantum effects to do computing. Theoretically, it may be able to do certain tasks faster than a traditional computer I'm not saying you're wrong- it's often mislabeled as a quantum computer- but it isn't fair to say it's no better than a chemist's beaker.
  - deepnotderp 9y ago

rainbowmverse 9y ago

>> It is hard to quickly check this now amidst the large amount of articles decrying D-Wave for calling themselves a quantum computer. Tip for quickly getting past all the irrelevant results in Google when you're searching for something specific: click the 10th page of results and start from there. You'll trigger their bot check more often because it's unusual to them that you actually want to know about the specific thing you're looking up instead of seeing 100 identical blog posts/news articles on the subject.

Arelius 9y ago
Sorry, but could you go into a bit more detail on how triggering a bot check is supposed to help get past the irrelevant results? I'm not sure I understand.
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  The bot check is just a thing that happens more. I seem to get it every few pages when digging deep down in results.
posterboy 9y ago
to get into the specifics, you probably need to study accordingly for a while. NLab has linked some sources https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/quantum+computation https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/quantum+computation