3 ms·

Scott Aaronson explained how this claim is wrong. Quantum computing is not the same thing as "analog computing". See his response to "a quantum computer would m

by jkabrg 8y ago

Scott Aaronson explained how this claim is wrong. Quantum computing is not the same thing as "analog computing". See his response to "a quantum computer would merely be a souped-up analog computer" here: https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec14.html https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec14.html > And yes, they are the same thing when you realize that the hardware is exactly the same Quantum computers don't actually exist yet. It's a theoretical model. There's no hardware.

yvdriess 8y ago
I think it's fair to say quantum computers don't exist yet, but there is plenty of hardware. Although we're still at the wall-throwing stage and nothing seems to have stuck yet. Even for the theoretical models, we have plenty of alternative models. The circuit model is the de-facto standard and a good thought framework, but there are real concerns about it maybe not to being the model to translate into actual hardware. (analogously, lambda calculus vs RTL) It will be interesting to see what alternative or new theoretical models pop up once the quantum computer's equivalent of the transistor surfaces.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Robotbeat 8y ago
The latter claim is not true. Quantum computers exist, but with lower capabilities than classical ones due to few numbers of entangled qubits.
- jkabrg 8y ago
  It's not guaranteed that the current hardware will scale to many more qubits. And they haven't passed the threshold to "quantum supremacy".
  - Robotbeat 8y ago
    Sure (although it's likely), but I don't think it's fair to call quantum computing hardware entirely theoretical at this point.
ethn 8y ago
Aaronson is completely wrong here, there already exists many powerful analog computation models and physical hardware backing it up (Apollo 11 had many). More so, it's completely dissuading to mention that the Quantum Threshold problem differentiates analog from quantum computation, when analog has practically unlimited resolution and error correction through sampling, while the proof states quantum needs 1,000-10,000 physical qbits for every physical qbit—–if anything computer scientists should and have, like Kalai, become skeptical of the possibility of quantum computation. Another thought to consider is since our computation latencies are currently restricted by sampling (clock) times, which is restricted by power (for heating reasons which are predicted by quantum), would the smarter bet be to pursue technology which uses exponentially less energy (analog) or technology which uses exponentially more energy with the same promised speed ups as the former (quantum)?

by jkabrg 8y ago

yvdriess 8y ago

I think it's fair to say quantum computers don't exist yet, but there is plenty of hardware. Although we're still at the wall-throwing stage and nothing seems to have stuck yet. Even for the theoretical models, we have plenty of alternative models. The circuit model is the de-facto standard and a good thought framework, but there are real concerns about it maybe not to being the model to translate into actual hardware. (analogously, lambda calculus vs RTL) It will be interesting to see what alternative or new theoretical models pop up once the quantum computer's equivalent of the transistor surfaces.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Robotbeat 8y ago

The latter claim is not true. Quantum computers exist, but with lower capabilities than classical ones due to few numbers of entangled qubits.

jkabrg 8y ago
It's not guaranteed that the current hardware will scale to many more qubits. And they haven't passed the threshold to "quantum supremacy".
- Robotbeat 8y ago
  Sure (although it's likely), but I don't think it's fair to call quantum computing hardware entirely theoretical at this point.

ethn 8y ago

Aaronson is completely wrong here, there already exists many powerful analog computation models and physical hardware backing it up (Apollo 11 had many). More so, it's completely dissuading to mention that the Quantum Threshold problem differentiates analog from quantum computation, when analog has practically unlimited resolution and error correction through sampling, while the proof states quantum needs 1,000-10,000 physical qbits for every physical qbit—–if anything computer scientists should and have, like Kalai, become skeptical of the possibility of quantum computation. Another thought to consider is since our computation latencies are currently restricted by sampling (clock) times, which is restricted by power (for heating reasons which are predicted by quantum), would the smarter bet be to pursue technology which uses exponentially less energy (analog) or technology which uses exponentially more energy with the same promised speed ups as the former (quantum)?