4 ms·

When I said they do more than “produce random numbers”, I meant that they do more than such than that which is out of their control (i.e., due to noise). By the

When I said they do more than “produce random numbers”, I meant that they do more than such than that which is out of their control (i.e., due to noise). By the physics of a quantum computer, at their very foundation, they’re random number generators. What you program on a quantum computer is, more or less, the shape of the distribution from which they sample. A linear congruential generator from Knuth programmed on a classical computer produces controlled pseudorandom numbers. So what? Whether a LCG or a program to produce controlled samples from a goofy Porter-Thomas distribution, they’re both coming from machines that were programmed to do a job. If the machine was neither a computer nor programmable, then the job could not be done. You haven’t refuted the point of the published existence of a computer. The paper includes both the results of a program running on a quantum computer, and a comparison of the results as simulated by a classical computer, the latter taking several orders of magnitude to complete at several orders of magnitude increased cost.

smoldesu 5y ago
This is a pretty weak argument. The default state of matter is entropy: if "quantum supremacy" entails being less predictable than a traditional computer, of course it will win. But it's also competing with a vast amount of pseudorandom values that can be polled at will to create a more plausible, usable random number. If this is actually the current state of QC then consider me a little scared.
- reikonomusha 5y ago
  It’s not competing on being less predictable. It’s competing on performing a calculation better or more accurately via a program written for the quantum computer (as opposed to a specialized machine for that singular task). The quantum computer was able to do that. The randomness is a total red herring and doesn’t contribute to the discussion as to whether a programmable computer performed a computation or not. It did, and it was verified as such. Google’s experiment isn’t “the state of quantum computing”. It’s a single scientific experiment among thousands. The particular experiment was for demonstrating a then hitherto unconfirmed claim about whether a quantum computer can do a computer science problem more efficiently. The theory already said it was true, but the experiment wasn’t yet demonstrated. It’s also an experiment lay people, and the HN tech crowd even, doesn’t care about. Because it’s deep and complicated science, not a sales pitch.

smoldesu 5y ago

This is a pretty weak argument. The default state of matter is entropy: if "quantum supremacy" entails being less predictable than a traditional computer, of course it will win. But it's also competing with a vast amount of pseudorandom values that can be polled at will to create a more plausible, usable random number. If this is actually the current state of QC then consider me a little scared.

reikonomusha 5y ago
It’s not competing on being less predictable. It’s competing on performing a calculation better or more accurately via a program written for the quantum computer (as opposed to a specialized machine for that singular task). The quantum computer was able to do that. The randomness is a total red herring and doesn’t contribute to the discussion as to whether a programmable computer performed a computation or not. It did, and it was verified as such. Google’s experiment isn’t “the state of quantum computing”. It’s a single scientific experiment among thousands. The particular experiment was for demonstrating a then hitherto unconfirmed claim about whether a quantum computer can do a computer science problem more efficiently. The theory already said it was true, but the experiment wasn’t yet demonstrated. It’s also an experiment lay people, and the HN tech crowd even, doesn’t care about. Because it’s deep and complicated science, not a sales pitch.