6 ms·

So we're not yet at a point where we can show that a quantum computer can do anything at all faster than a classical computer - and this guy already plans his d

by hannob 8y ago

So we're not yet at a point where we can show that a quantum computer can do anything at all faster than a classical computer - and this guy already plans his datacenter for the upcoming quantum AWS. I'd say he's confusing step 20 with step 2 or something...

arayh 8y ago
We already know that a capable quantum computer can do a lot of things faster than a classical computer and it's undoubtedly going to happen within the next couple decades if not sooner. I think he's just planning ahead and riding the bleeding edge technology. Edit: Thanks everyone for pointing out a flaw in my opinion. For anyone actually interested in delving into the discussion of whether or not quantum computing is faster than classical computing https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/24943/is-there-a-formal-proof-that-quantum-computing-is-or-will-be-faster-than-classic#24952 https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/24943/is-there-...
- bloomer 8y ago
  That's actually incorrect. Many people believe a quantum computer may be more powerful than a classical computer, but that is definitely not proven and plenty of people also believe that may not be true.
  - dplavery92 8y ago
    Well, for certain classes of problems, it is certainly proven that quantum algorithms are faster than classical algorithms. And they're not totally theoretical pie-in-the-sky; you can implement a 5- or 16-qubit version of Shor's algorithm in IBM Q Experience[0] and run it on a real, physical quantum computer. The growing pains are in implementing quantum computers that are large enough to be of practical importance, and then building those systems several-fold larger for Quantum Fault Tolerance.[1] Quantum computers are never going to replace or speed up every aspect of classical computation, but the idea of accessing them as a service for certain types of computation is probably not many decades off. [0] https://quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net/proxy/tutorial/full-user-guide/004-Quantum_Algorithms/110-Shor's_algorithm.html https://quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net/proxy/tutorial/full... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_error_correction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_error_correction
    - adrianN 8y ago
      There are quantum algorithms for certain problems that are exponentially faster than any known classical algorithm, and there are good reasons to believe that BQP is not contained in BPP, but we don't have proof of that yet as far as I know. (Technically we still don't really know whether physics actually allows quantum computers with more than a few bits. Quantum mechanics says yes, but the universe can still veto.)
    - trhway 8y ago
      >it is certainly proven that quantum algorithms are faster than classical algorithms. yes. What isn't proven is that actual implementation of quantum algorithms would be fast enough (i.e. while a given quantum algorithm may be order of magnitude faster using the number of steps/operations a the metric, may it happen that the runtime (using time as the metric) of those quantum steps may take order of magnitude longer ?). There is some indications that various corrections/etc. have to grow faster than linear with the number of qubits.
- cosmon0t 8y ago
  Theranos rode the bleeding edge of technology until they ran out of edge.
  - alonmower 8y ago
    also blood!
  - trhway 8y ago
    Theranos style cloud quantum computing - run the simulation on classic and sell the result as quantum result.
wpasc 8y ago
If you build it, they will come. More seriously, once it becomes obvious how it will be used, they will no longer be ahead. A good counterpoint though is what if they build it based on current designs which require some radically different setup than the future designs that will be worth it.
rguzman 8y ago
the other possibility is that they do know something that isn't widely known about quantum computing.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
aaaaaaaaaab 8y ago
Yep. Sounds like their cloud is literally made of vapour.
QuinnyPig 8y ago
Normally I'd agree with you, but some of the breakthroughs in this space over the last 18 month make it clear that it's not an "if," but a "when." They're positioning to be right there when the moment happens.
- kryogen1c 8y ago
  Got any sources? I have not seen anything that promises anything. This reminds me of the carbon nanotube hype, when they we're going to be the best at everything from batteries to bulletproof vests. There are currently 0 CN products on the market, and it is not clear there ever will be. Betting on an undiscovered technology that isn't proven to exist is far form a sure thing.
  - QuinnyPig 8y ago
    Between Google (https://www.zdnet.com/article/googles-quantum-computing-breakthrough-our-new-chip-might-soon-outperform-a-supercomputer/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/googles-quantum-computing-brea...), Oxford (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/quantum-computing-logic-gates-oxford-university-breakthrough-latest-discovery-a8235281.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne...) and Intel (https://www.extremetech.com/computing/261734-intel-unveils-new-quantum-computer-declares-quantum-breakthrough https://www.extremetech.com/computing/261734-intel-unveils-n...) so far this year alone, indications are becoming increasingly clear that there's something here. I'd definitely take that bet were I a VC. Note that they've raised about the same amount so far as Juicero did...
  - dplavery92 8y ago
    Research in carbon nanotubes only really matured from fundamental to applied in the past 15 years, so I don't think it's that surprising that the market isn't flooded with them yet. We're already seeing some of the first commercially available CNT products, though. Take Vantablack[0] as an example. Or for non-commercial applications of CNT tech, see the CNT-reinforced bicycle frame that Floyd Landis used to win the Tour de France in 2006.[1] When you consider that Bakelite was invented in 1907, but didn't see major manufacture until the 1940s, or that PVC was discovered in the 1870s, but didn't see commercial production until almost the same time, it doesn't seem like CNT are much behind the timeline for plastics. The entire chemical and plastics revolution didn't really take swing until the 1960s. CNT probably aren't vaporware, and even if they were I don't know if that'd be too damning a story for Quantum Computers. Quantum Computing isn't "undiscovered" or "[not] proven to exist." Plenty of labs have produced physical quantum logic gates, and IBM even makes access to some of their real 5- and 16-qubit machines available online through the cloud.[2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack [1] https://archive.fo/20120713061226/http://news.cnet.com/Carbon-nanotubes-enter-Tour-de-France/2100-11395_3-6091347.html https://archive.fo/20120713061226/http://news.cnet.com/Carbo... [2] https://quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net/qx https://quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net/qx
paulsutter 8y ago
They're designing the computer. They know exactly which problems they are targeting. Yes there's risk, but this isn't proceeding on blind hope.
reikonomusha 8y ago
It might not just be “faster”. It could also be “better” (obtaining more accurate results than you otherwise could), or “cheaper” (obtaining results with less money, less memory, less electricity, ...). Power consumption, for instance, is a huge factor in the design of modern supercomputers and data centers. If you can do useful tasks 50% slower but using 5% of the energy you’d consume with a “full speed” solution, I’d say that’s a win.
zhengwang 8y ago
Gotta keep the hype up to keep the VC money flowing.
adrianN 8y ago
The keyword to google for here is "quantum supremacy". There is for example this paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00263 https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00263

by hannob 8y ago

arayh 8y ago

We already know that a capable quantum computer can do a lot of things faster than a classical computer and it's undoubtedly going to happen within the next couple decades if not sooner. I think he's just planning ahead and riding the bleeding edge technology. Edit: Thanks everyone for pointing out a flaw in my opinion. For anyone actually interested in delving into the discussion of whether or not quantum computing is faster than classical computing https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/24943/is-there-a-formal-proof-that-quantum-computing-is-or-will-be-faster-than-classic#24952 https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/24943/is-there-...

bloomer 8y ago
That's actually incorrect. Many people believe a quantum computer may be more powerful than a classical computer, but that is definitely not proven and plenty of people also believe that may not be true.
- dplavery92 8y ago
  Well, for certain classes of problems, it is certainly proven that quantum algorithms are faster than classical algorithms. And they're not totally theoretical pie-in-the-sky; you can implement a 5- or 16-qubit version of Shor's algorithm in IBM Q Experience[0] and run it on a real, physical quantum computer. The growing pains are in implementing quantum computers that are large enough to be of practical importance, and then building those systems several-fold larger for Quantum Fault Tolerance.[1] Quantum computers are never going to replace or speed up every aspect of classical computation, but the idea of accessing them as a service for certain types of computation is probably not many decades off. [0] https://quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net/proxy/tutorial/full-user-guide/004-Quantum_Algorithms/110-Shor's_algorithm.html https://quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net/proxy/tutorial/full... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_error_correction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_error_correction
  - adrianN 8y ago
    There are quantum algorithms for certain problems that are exponentially faster than any known classical algorithm, and there are good reasons to believe that BQP is not contained in BPP, but we don't have proof of that yet as far as I know. (Technically we still don't really know whether physics actually allows quantum computers with more than a few bits. Quantum mechanics says yes, but the universe can still veto.)
  - trhway 8y ago
    >it is certainly proven that quantum algorithms are faster than classical algorithms. yes. What isn't proven is that actual implementation of quantum algorithms would be fast enough (i.e. while a given quantum algorithm may be order of magnitude faster using the number of steps/operations a the metric, may it happen that the runtime (using time as the metric) of those quantum steps may take order of magnitude longer ?). There is some indications that various corrections/etc. have to grow faster than linear with the number of qubits.
cosmon0t 8y ago
Theranos rode the bleeding edge of technology until they ran out of edge.
- alonmower 8y ago
  also blood!
- trhway 8y ago
  Theranos style cloud quantum computing - run the simulation on classic and sell the result as quantum result.

wpasc 8y ago

If you build it, they will come. More seriously, once it becomes obvious how it will be used, they will no longer be ahead. A good counterpoint though is what if they build it based on current designs which require some radically different setup than the future designs that will be worth it.

rguzman 8y ago

the other possibility is that they do know something that isn't widely known about quantum computing.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

aaaaaaaaaab 8y ago

Yep. Sounds like their cloud is literally made of vapour.

QuinnyPig 8y ago

Normally I'd agree with you, but some of the breakthroughs in this space over the last 18 month make it clear that it's not an "if," but a "when." They're positioning to be right there when the moment happens.

kryogen1c 8y ago
Got any sources? I have not seen anything that promises anything. This reminds me of the carbon nanotube hype, when they we're going to be the best at everything from batteries to bulletproof vests. There are currently 0 CN products on the market, and it is not clear there ever will be. Betting on an undiscovered technology that isn't proven to exist is far form a sure thing.
- QuinnyPig 8y ago
  Between Google (https://www.zdnet.com/article/googles-quantum-computing-breakthrough-our-new-chip-might-soon-outperform-a-supercomputer/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/googles-quantum-computing-brea...), Oxford (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/quantum-computing-logic-gates-oxford-university-breakthrough-latest-discovery-a8235281.html https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne...) and Intel (https://www.extremetech.com/computing/261734-intel-unveils-new-quantum-computer-declares-quantum-breakthrough https://www.extremetech.com/computing/261734-intel-unveils-n...) so far this year alone, indications are becoming increasingly clear that there's something here. I'd definitely take that bet were I a VC. Note that they've raised about the same amount so far as Juicero did...
- dplavery92 8y ago
  Research in carbon nanotubes only really matured from fundamental to applied in the past 15 years, so I don't think it's that surprising that the market isn't flooded with them yet. We're already seeing some of the first commercially available CNT products, though. Take Vantablack[0] as an example. Or for non-commercial applications of CNT tech, see the CNT-reinforced bicycle frame that Floyd Landis used to win the Tour de France in 2006.[1] When you consider that Bakelite was invented in 1907, but didn't see major manufacture until the 1940s, or that PVC was discovered in the 1870s, but didn't see commercial production until almost the same time, it doesn't seem like CNT are much behind the timeline for plastics. The entire chemical and plastics revolution didn't really take swing until the 1960s. CNT probably aren't vaporware, and even if they were I don't know if that'd be too damning a story for Quantum Computers. Quantum Computing isn't "undiscovered" or "[not] proven to exist." Plenty of labs have produced physical quantum logic gates, and IBM even makes access to some of their real 5- and 16-qubit machines available online through the cloud.[2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack [1] https://archive.fo/20120713061226/http://news.cnet.com/Carbon-nanotubes-enter-Tour-de-France/2100-11395_3-6091347.html https://archive.fo/20120713061226/http://news.cnet.com/Carbo... [2] https://quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net/qx https://quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net/qx

paulsutter 8y ago

They're designing the computer. They know exactly which problems they are targeting. Yes there's risk, but this isn't proceeding on blind hope.

reikonomusha 8y ago

It might not just be “faster”. It could also be “better” (obtaining more accurate results than you otherwise could), or “cheaper” (obtaining results with less money, less memory, less electricity, ...). Power consumption, for instance, is a huge factor in the design of modern supercomputers and data centers. If you can do useful tasks 50% slower but using 5% of the energy you’d consume with a “full speed” solution, I’d say that’s a win.

zhengwang 8y ago

Gotta keep the hype up to keep the VC money flowing.

adrianN 8y ago

The keyword to google for here is "quantum supremacy". There is for example this paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00263 https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00263