

Google Buys a Quantum Computer - sciwiz
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/google-buys-a-quantum-computer

======
lmm
Have D-Wave demonstrated any actual quantum behaviour yet? I had them down as
a scam prior to the google involvement; now I'm not sure what to think.

~~~
yk
It seems that they did build a probably quantum but quite likely not computer.
They are actually solving some optimization problem. And they do this quite
well. However as far as I understood, they did not convincingly demonstrate
that they are actually using a quantum version or a classical version of the
system. And quite likely they can not run arbitrary computations. So it seems
that the jury is still out, if they did build a quantum computer or a very
specialized classical hardware.

~~~
mike_ivanov
It is an adiabatic quantum computer:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_quantum_computation>

------
carlob
Recently I read an article [1] about this, and it seems that D-Wave has a
large advantage in optimization problems that pop up often in machine
learning.

I think this is a lot less esoteric than it sounds: a company develops a
computer that is a lot faster at optimizing using a quantum trick, we do
classical machine learning faster. I'm pretty certain they're not doing
anything qualitatively different than before. No (largely debunked) Penrose
theories on quantum consciousness, sorry.

[1] [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23519-commercial-
quant...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23519-commercial-quantum-
computer-leaves-pc-in-the-dust.html)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
But their demo software is to solve the traveling salesman problem - with 4
nodes. I can do that on paper. If the bloody thing works, why not show us how
to solve it for 50 countries, or all the counties in Ireland, or something
that shows it actually doing something cool?

It looks like a scam.

------
MildlySerious
I think if there is someone I would not want to own a quantum computer, next
to Lockheed Martin, thats Google. They already are at least 10 years ahead of
everyone else. If they are the first to spend the money on seriously making
use of quantum computers, who on earth is going to stop them if they decide to
make bad use of their power?

I'd really like to see this power in a companies hands that is not against the
concept of privacy.

~~~
blocking_io
_They already are at least 10 years ahead of everyone else_

What one Earth does this mean?

~~~
UniZero
Well, he did include "at least" which suggests he was just coming up with a
rough figure. I somewhat agree with him.

There is no denying that Google is (arguably) one of the most powerful
companies out there. Are they ten years ahead of everyone else? Maybe, maybe
not. But one thing for certain is that they have the computing power,
finance,and connections to pretty much pursue whatever they want.

Is that a bad thing? Who knows. It really boils down to whether
anyone/anything should ever have that kind of power.

~~~
mellotron
Just wait until Google self driving tech is installed into a majority of new
cars in 20 years. Or less.

------
mike_ivanov
"Quantum" is a bit of buzzword in a sense that people understand it in a very
narrow sense. D-Wave's system is NOT a "classical" qubit-based quantum
computer. What it does is essentially global optimization of multimode
functions using quantum effects.

~~~
dave_sullivan
True, but significantly faster global optimization of multimode functions _by
any means_ turns out to be pretty useful for exactly the types of ML problems
that are stretching the limits of current hardware. This seems like a
promising first step towards technology that could be _really_ useful if it
comes anywhere close to doing what it claims.

------
ozh
All jokes aside, it's fairly obvious we're dooomed to be Skynet'd one day or
another in the future.

~~~
crucialfelix
that depends on your definition of "we"

ozh fourth of ten, you've got glass installed, right ?

------
nicholassmith
Interesting, I thought D-Wave was still a bit ropey and quantum computing was
a bit of a fussy problem to get working consistently. Although it comes as no
surprise Google is getting on the quantum computing bandwagon nice and early,
but the idea of the pinnacle of algorithmic research with quantum computing
being done by a company that likes to optimise data processing to help
advertise to you more effectively is...well, frankly somewhat ridiculous.

------
kolbe
While I loathe Ayn Rand I have to give her some credit for capturing accurate
human behavior in Atlas Shrugged: the D-Wave skeptics seem to behave exactly
like Rearden's detractors.

But in the face of it all, D-Wave keeps plugging along, landing larger
contracts, and hitting more impressive benchmarks. They may fizzle out in a
flame of failure in the end, but as it stands, they seem like they're doing a
great job.

------
GigabyteCoin
They can't hash SHA256 with this quantum computer, can they?

------
jmilkbal
I hadn't considered just how radically different a quantum computer would
look. That is really something else, like the gauss gun from Half Life.

------
mellotron
Singularity draws ever closer...

~~~
6d0debc071
And the target size for friendly systems is probably tiny.

------
loceng
Awesome

------
michaelochurch
Whenever I hear about Google doing some genuine technology, it just makes me a
million times more fucking angry to compare what Google must be like if you're
a Real Googler (machine learning projects, basic research, quantum computing,
meaningful work) to the misery that the other 90% endure.

I feel like this should be much more of an HR problem than it seems to be.
Whenever it comes out that Google's real members are working on a neat AI or
robotics problem, everyone who's stuck working on some dead-end maintenance
project for some terminal middle manager ought to go to a VP and say, "I want
on this cutting-edge technology _now_ or I will fucking quit." That 18-months
bullshit should be cause for shit to get blown up.

~~~
prawks
So who works on the rest of the existing Google systems once everyone just up
and switches to doing research and "meaningful work"?

~~~
michaelochurch
Well, here's how I think about it.

If you have an open allocation system where people are free to work directly
for the company, then people spend some time on the research work that
interests them, and some on the maintenance and upkeep of critical systems.
Why do they volunteer for less attractive projects? Because they actually
care, because the company is (imagine this) worth caring about. Once the
maintenance work is done by volunteers rather than extortion victims, it
starts getting a lot of respect and people to do it to be "heroes". So yes, it
still gets done.

On the other hand, if you work in a careerist closed-allocation hellhole where
your boss has unilateral authority to whip it out and flow a shot on your
performance reviews/"calibration score" (i.e. managerial extortion) then,
obviously people are going to look out only for themselves and the maintenance
won't get done unless someone's forced to do it (in which case, it's done very
badly). People will not freely participate in a closed allocation company's
upkeep because the work culture of a closed-allocation firm is not worth
caring about or protecting.

They're both equilibrium states. In one (open allocation) people see
themselves as citizens and do the full mix of the work: the important and fun
stuff, but also the less-fun but critical "hero" work. In the other (closed
allocation/extortion economy) people realize that the company has no
consideration for them and that no one's looking out for their careers, so
they take anything that's not nailed down and the critical upkeep work doesn't
get done.

~~~
kamaal
The way I see is, there is always going to be a 'somebody has to do this dirty
work' mentality everywhere. No matter where you work at.

What work you get is very similar to being born. A baby born could have easily
been somebody else. If you look at this way, you are almost definitely not
going to get those big projects unless you are into some kind of a political
game or are simply good enough and get your due chance.

One thing I've learned the hard way is, a person must not 'wait'. He must not
wait for chances to come, or the ecosystem to help him, or somebody else to do
it for them. Couple of days back I was reading Aaron Swartz's essay on
productivity. In which he mentions a very important point- Always choose the
most important problem to work on. And if you follow that advice seriously.
You will someday find yourself working on most important problems in the
world.

In the end, its just comes down to you. In large corporation project
allocations are random at best, completely devoid of merit.

~~~
michaelochurch
_If you look at this way, you are almost definitely not going to get those big
projects unless you are into some kind of a political game or are simply good
enough and get your due chance._

You would have had a more accurate statement if you truncated it before the
"or". Closed-allocation companies always have the most important work done by
the politicians, not the people most adept at doing it. There are no
exceptions.

 _In which he mentions a very important point- Always choose the most
important problem to work on._

This will get you fired. It means that you are pursuing your own career goals
(and benefiting the company, but not your immediate managers) rather than your
boss's and you will be shit-canned as soon as he finds out.

 _You will someday find yourself working on most important problems in the
world._

No, you will be long-term unemployed if you follow that strategy.

I have a lot of respect for Aaron Swartz, but look at what the fuckers in
power did to him.

------
reiche
But does it run BF3?

