5 ms·

I remember many people, especially Scott Aaronson, questioned D-Wave back when I was in school. Has anything changed recently regarding the community's opinion

by niggler 14y ago

I remember many people, especially Scott Aaronson, questioned D-Wave back when I was in school. Has anything changed recently regarding the community's opinion?

devilshaircut 14y ago
This is the exact question that I was prepared to ask; eager to hear a response.
AndrewKemendo 14y ago
Scott's visit to D-Wave shifted his opinion. He obviously can't come out and say he changed his mind as a professional skeptic but it comes about as close to saying as much. http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=954 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=954
- gjm11 14y ago
  This seems to me a very inaccurate and unfair characterization, especially the insinuation that he's dishonestly suppressing his newfound belief in D-Wave because he's a "professional skeptic". Aaronson is clearly still unconvinced that D-Wave's machine actually does anything "sufficiently quantum" to get any speedup over what you can do classically. He says: D-Wave does have something today that’s more computationally-useful than a roast-beef sandwich; the question is “merely” whether it’s ever more useful than your laptop. and: It remains true, as I’ve reiterated here for years, that we have no direct evidence that quantum coherence is playing a role in the observed speedup, or indeed that entanglement between qubits is ever present in the system. On the other hand, he is willing to say that D-Wave have indeed made a machine that does Something Interesting, namely giving approximate solutions to a particular mathematical problem. So it looks to me as if he (1) has changed his mind about the things he's been given actual evidence for, (2) is perfectly willing to say so despite his role "as a professional skeptic", and (3) hasn't so far been convinced that D-Wave have an actual useful quantum computer doing quantum-computer things that you couldn't do just as well with a classical machine. Which is approximately the exact opposite of what you say.
  - AndrewKemendo 14y ago
    >especially the insinuation that he's dishonestly suppressing his newfound belief in D-Wave because he's a "professional skeptic". That wasn't my intent; moreso I intended to portray that he is emphasizing, and greatly warranted in this case, scientific skepticism paraphrasing his own terms. I don't think that is the opposite.
troymc 14y ago
Speaking of Scott Aaronson, he's got a new book coming out, on this topic and more: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1277 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1277
Ygg2 14y ago
There was experimental confirmation of quantum entaglement[1]. Of course this being science, there will be more tests in future and hopefully it will shed some light if it was a hoax or not. However people need to understand this isn't quantum gate computer (i.e. a quantum version of modern PCs with gates), but adiabatic quantum computer which are designed for purpose of solving a particular problem (that's what I gather from that article). [1]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23251-controversial-quantum-computer-aces-entanglement-tests.html?full=true http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23251-controversial-qu...

by niggler 14y ago

I remember many people, especially Scott Aaronson, questioned D-Wave back when I was in school. Has anything changed recently regarding the community's opinion?

devilshaircut 14y ago

This is the exact question that I was prepared to ask; eager to hear a response.

AndrewKemendo 14y ago

Scott's visit to D-Wave shifted his opinion. He obviously can't come out and say he changed his mind as a professional skeptic but it comes about as close to saying as much. http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=954 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=954

gjm11 14y ago
This seems to me a very inaccurate and unfair characterization, especially the insinuation that he's dishonestly suppressing his newfound belief in D-Wave because he's a "professional skeptic". Aaronson is clearly still unconvinced that D-Wave's machine actually does anything "sufficiently quantum" to get any speedup over what you can do classically. He says: D-Wave does have something today that’s more computationally-useful than a roast-beef sandwich; the question is “merely” whether it’s ever more useful than your laptop. and: It remains true, as I’ve reiterated here for years, that we have no direct evidence that quantum coherence is playing a role in the observed speedup, or indeed that entanglement between qubits is ever present in the system. On the other hand, he is willing to say that D-Wave have indeed made a machine that does Something Interesting, namely giving approximate solutions to a particular mathematical problem. So it looks to me as if he (1) has changed his mind about the things he's been given actual evidence for, (2) is perfectly willing to say so despite his role "as a professional skeptic", and (3) hasn't so far been convinced that D-Wave have an actual useful quantum computer doing quantum-computer things that you couldn't do just as well with a classical machine. Which is approximately the exact opposite of what you say.
- AndrewKemendo 14y ago
  >especially the insinuation that he's dishonestly suppressing his newfound belief in D-Wave because he's a "professional skeptic". That wasn't my intent; moreso I intended to portray that he is emphasizing, and greatly warranted in this case, scientific skepticism paraphrasing his own terms. I don't think that is the opposite.

troymc 14y ago

Speaking of Scott Aaronson, he's got a new book coming out, on this topic and more: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1277 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1277

Ygg2 14y ago

There was experimental confirmation of quantum entaglement[1]. Of course this being science, there will be more tests in future and hopefully it will shed some light if it was a hoax or not. However people need to understand this isn't quantum gate computer (i.e. a quantum version of modern PCs with gates), but adiabatic quantum computer which are designed for purpose of solving a particular problem (that's what I gather from that article). [1]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23251-controversial-quantum-computer-aces-entanglement-tests.html?full=true http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23251-controversial-qu...