
D-Wave Founder's New Startup Combines AI, Robots, and Monkeys in Exo-Suits - zxcvvcxz
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-intelligence/dwave-founder-new-startup-kindred-ai
======
dkarapetyan
These d-wave guys are the greatest scam geniuses in history. First they make a
"quantum computer" and now they're building trainable exo-suits. I don't even
know where they come up with this stuff.

~~~
zxcvvcxz
I'm going to have to ask you to expand on this comment and provide some
context for why you think they're "scam geniuses"?

~~~
ThePhysicist
So far D-Wave has failed to provide any direct or indirect evidence that their
"quantum computer" actually achieves quantum speed up. An investigation by a
scientist from ETH Zurich who was able to use their machine came to the
conclusion that their quantum algorithm does not outperform a classical
system.

It's hard to think of a reason to refuse to publicly prove that your quantum
computer is actually working if it really is, if it isn't it makes a lot of
sense of course.

Concerning the purchases of Google and the US government: These are probably
more like research grants for D-Wave, as the buyers expect that at some time
there might come a working quantum computer from D-Wave, and buying a
prototype (even a faulty one) puts them in a good position to be the first to
actually get a working version, while helping the company to stay afloat. By
the way, Google invested 200 million USD in a different quantum computing
technology endeavour led by a UC Santa Barbara professor, which would make
little sense if they already had a working quantum computer.

The value of D-Wave as a company is not only defined by their ability to build
a working quantum computer though, as there could be significant value in the
patent portfolio they built / acquired and in their expertise in building and
assembling superconducting chips and systems, which are both highly non-
trivial tasks.

Their way of communicating with the public is of course highly misleading,
which is why many people in the scientific community have very little respect
for them, as this is viewed as highly unethical and harmful behavior in
science (but not necessarily in the business world).

~~~
blazespin
What's wrong with doing pure research as a Startup? Why does pure research
have to only be the domain of Universities? I think it was a great experiment
that failed, but that probably goes for something like 95% of great
experiments.

Lots of pure research goes nowhere. It's not like Geordie is defrauding the
old and disabled. He's working with really really really smart people with
lots of money.

Honestly, we need more of this and less of SnapChat startups.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
_What 's wrong with doing pure research as a Startup?_

Because there is no reliable way to fund it. Said another way, the time
horizon for repayment is too long and too risky for traditional, non-
corporate, non-public investing.

Lets assume you have a breakthrough with research, now you have to make a
product to sell. Which means you need to likely build a new market, or even in
the best case of an existing market change the team composition to fund
product development.

Those are all risks that Banks and Venture Money (except in very rare cases)
aren't willing to take.

------
yolesaber
Has D-Wave made any actual feasible technical achievements WRT quantum
computing or are they just the Theranos of that domain?

~~~
dsacco
It's hard to say. Industry experts like Scott Aaronson have gone back on forth
with regards to whether or not it's 1) truly a quantum computer and 2) capable
of real improvements over classical computers for anything nontrivial. Point
#2 is perhaps more important for practical purposes.

Aaronson is currently back in the skeptical camp after a brief stint of
"cautious enthusiasm" in 2012. Umesh Vazirani, Aaronson's PhD advisor and the
grandfather of quantum computing, has been largely dismissive of D-Wave and
doesn't believe their computers will be capable of much even if they are truly
quantum.

The technology is apparently impressive enough that Google, NASA and Lockheed
Martin have partnered with D-Wave to test its capabilities, but to date it has
not done anything revolutionary. I'm sure they have done _something_ , but
it's not clear what trade secrets they have can be separated from marketing,
and their public work has been reproduced on classical computers.

There have also been a number of articles in _Nature Physics_ , _Science_ and
elsewhere by different authors going back and forth on points 1 and 2 above.
The current consensus is that D-Wave is not creating true quantum computers;
but they have developed classical, pseudo-quantum computers with legitimate
entanglement implemented, and which do not currently offer any real quantum
speedup or improvement over classical computers.

That said, I mostly follow quantum cryptography, so I haven't read this
research in a while. I am personally happy that D-Wave exists and is trying to
push forward the field - I think comparisons to Theranos are uncharitable. But
I am skeptical of their real advancements.

 _Edited to clarify after reviewing the research again._

~~~
forgotpwtomain
> It's hard to say. Industry experts like Scott Aaronson have gone back on
> forth with regards to whether or not it's 1) truly a quantum computer and 2)
> capable of real improvements over classical computers for anything
> nontrivial. Point #2 is perhaps more important for practical purposes.

I down-voted this. I have only a layman's understanding but from what I have
read particularly #2 is demonstratively false, D-Wave has not achieved _any_
improvements over classical computers for _anything_ (including it's very own
domain problem, which Alex Selby's classical algorithm outperforms D-Wave on).
[0][1]

[0]
[http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2555#comment-974407](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2555#comment-974407)

[1]
[http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400)

~~~
lohankin
No point to refer to "industry experts". Either data shows speedup, or it
doesn't. Things will become clear after they release the next version [0]. If
there's x1000 speedup, as claimed, it's a real deal, no matter if it's "really
quantum" or otherwise.

[0] [http://www.dwavesys.com/media-coverage/techrepublic-
quantum-...](http://www.dwavesys.com/media-coverage/techrepublic-quantum-leap-
d-waves-next-quantum-computing-chip-offers-1000x-speed)

~~~
forgotpwtomain
>If there's x1000 speedup, as claimed, it's a real deal, no matter if it's
"really quantum" or otherwise.

Except not, because constant time speedup isn't interesting, 1000x classical
computers will get you the same effect probably for less $ than d-wave. The
entire point is that a genuine quantum computer should achieve an asymptotic
speed-up not a constant factor one, which no one really cares about.

------
inlineint
> The operator can use foot pedals to control the robot’s movement and a
> virtual reality headset like the Oculus Rift to experience what the robot is
> seeing.

Maybe it's a bit off topic, but I'd like to put here fiction sources (which I
know) that explore this kind of setup:

1) A Cognitive Discontinuity story by Andrej Karpathy (2015):
[http://karpathy.github.io/2015/11/14/ai/](http://karpathy.github.io/2015/11/14/ai/)

2) Sleep Dealer movie (2008):
[https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sleep_dealer/](https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sleep_dealer/)

------
Nanite
Regardless of the actual/implied progress made by D-wave to build a quantum
computer. The fact that its CTO of 17 or so years decides to move on to
greener pastures / take on a side mission, does not bode well for D-wave

~~~
jondubois
That's what I was thinking. Mechanical exoskeletons are not innovative - They
already exist. Quantum computing on the other hand; that's highly innovative.

Why would someone who is supposedly at the forefront of this highly innovative
field throw away years of experience and start again from scratch in a
comparatively much simpler field.

This doesn't inspire much confidence in D-Wave.

------
petra
One way to gather all the data for training using deep learning, is run
millions of robots. But that may happen if tele-operated robots become a big
industry in of itself - which economically could work.

So the big issue is: what is the state of the art in tele-operated robots ?
And what's missing for it to become a thing ?

~~~
Jyaif
We are definitely not going to do deep learning for robots that way: we'll run
simulations inside virtual worlds.

~~~
lardo
[http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-
intel...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-
intelligence/google-large-scale-robotic-grasping-project)

------
dnautics
Why did the founder leave d-wave?

~~~
j1vms
Is it not possible for someone to have more than one startup?

~~~
gumby
As someone who did it, it's really hard! You really want to be all-in on both,
which of course is impossible.

------
rdiddly
Monkeys in Exo-Suits. So ripe for parody as a Gavin Belson moonshot.

------
bogomipz
I know a few years ago there was some amount of skepticism on whether the
Dwave machines were atually quantum computers. Has that skepticism been put to
rest? Can anyone comment?

edit: I missed the comment below regarding the designation "universal" quantum
computer. I guess that was the crux of the skeptic argument?

------
sharemywin
Isn't this a lot like Disney's robot:

[http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/robotics-
hardwar...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/robotics-
hardware/disney-robot-with-air-water-actuators)

~~~
teddyh
That’s not a robot, that’s a “waldo” – a puppet that is being controlled
remotely.

~~~
sharemywin
what's the difference between an exo-suit and puppet?

~~~
teddyh
I was only objecting to calling Disney’s “Jimmy” a “robot”, because is isn’t
one; nothing else.

