
Google expected to achieve quantum supremacy in 2019 - kurthr
https://thenextweb.com/science/2019/07/19/google-expected-to-achieve-quantum-supremacy-in-2019-heres-what-that-means/
======
avsteele
I used to do ion-trap based quantum computing research but I've been out of
the field since 2009. It's great there's multiple large entities investing in
quantum computing. Honestly I had been getting pretty skeptical on any of the
approaches (ion tap, superconducting, neutral atom traps etc...) because it
seemed like little progress was being made.

I wish I wish there was more here to go on. There's nothing 'new' here in the
actual article I can see, except an extrapolation from a trend observed for
VERY low #'s of qubits forward; seems like the shakiest kind of speculation.

Quantum simulations see like the lowest hanging fruit for useful computation
out of these low-qubit systems; I look forward to seeing if they can use their
system to solve some currently intractable problems!

~~~
arcticbull
I took some courses on quantum computing in college, and my takeaway at the
time was all modern approaches to quantum computing are slower (effectively,
and worse in almost every case in terms of algorithmic complexity) than their
classical counterparts. Are we any closer to getting a quantum implementation
of Shor's algorithm? My understanding is that none of D-wave's systems for
instance are anywhere close to implementing Shor, and I treat that as my "are
we there yet" test. I really enjoyed the classes, but haven't kept up with
advancements in the space in really any way.

~~~
boothby
> My understanding is that none of D-wave's systems for instance are anywhere
> close to implementing Shor, and I treat that as my "are we there yet" test.

Do you care about the algorithm, or the result? Currently we can factor 11-bit
semiprimes fairly reliably, and our hardware is capable of running 16-bit
problems. But no, it's not Shor's algorithm. It's conceptually much simpler:
implement a multiplication circuit, clamp the output, anneal to find the
inputs. Despite not being Shor's algorithm, we've yet to see a competitor
demonstrate anything close on the factoring problem.

There's a strange thing in quantum computing happening right now. Certain
people believe that there's only one kind of quantum computing, because it's
got a provable speedup under yet-unobtainable assumptions. Adiabatic quantum
computing, under a similarly unobtainable set of assumptions, can run the same
algorithms, polynomially equivalent in time and space. But gate-model gets all
the hype.

And speaking of hype, 2017 just called.
[https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/google-plans-
to...](https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/google-plans-to-
demonstrate-the-supremacy-of-quantum-computing)

~~~
xiphias2
I mostly care about the available time for Bitcoin to switch to quantum secure
cryptography. It’s scary that people wouldn’t accept a 10x fee increase which
would be necessary for the switch.

~~~
postalrat
It's already too late. Even if they switched now it wouldn't save all the
coins stored in older addresses.

They need to choose between removing a large part of the coins from the
blockchain or accepting that those coins will be taken by whoever has the
technology first. Both options are bad for bitcoin.

~~~
xiphias2
It'a not that bad, it's easy to add a new digital signature to Bitcoin (the
hard part is developing one that's accepted by the community). Most of the
money can be consolidated to less UTXOs. The problem will still be that we
have no idea when the current signatures get unsecure.

------
singularity2001
Reading the current Science article on this topic I got the impression that
‘quantum advantage’ might be a more reasonable first goal. that is we are
still waiting for a quantum computer which can perform better than an ordinary
computer in a single __restricted setting __. Also I was a little bit shocked
that even with 16 Qbit those systems already show a significant error rate (I
think up to 50%)

My skepticism was confirmed by estimates in the same article of the Quantum
supremacy still being decades away. So I’m a little bit confused about the
current announcement but fortunately it is easily falsifiable... let’s wait
for 2020

------
chiefalchemist
Let's say I'm not Google or IBM. Once the seal breaks, so speak, what type of
resources will I need to get involved in quantum computing? And what are some
of the possible nefarious things I might dabble in?

Is quantum computing going to replace nuclear weapons as an uncontainable
force to be feared?

~~~
pstuart
> what are some of the possible nefarious things I might dabble in?

My concern is breaking today's crypto so only the big kids can have it. I've
no idea if this is a real worry -- lot's of smart people here could probably
address that....

~~~
Dylan16807
Being quantum-safe is mostly a matter of switching to hash functions and
doubling the sizes. A total reworking but not a permanent break.

~~~
Bombthecat
But all your old stuff will be basically public.

As someone I knew pit it: no one cares about financial stuff from two years
ago. Or even last year. But all your healthcare and private data is very very
interesting!

~~~
tylerl
It's not that interesting though. I mean, it's not 100% worthless information,
but it's not as valuable as people pretend. Especially if the legal
environment continues in the direction it is going today, private data
(especially medical data) becomes pretty devoid of monetary value if not
legally obtained, and even becomes a liability. The threat of Big Companies
spending billions on cracking your encryption for filthy lucre is pretty much
an unrealistic fantasy.

------
credit_guy
Maybe I'm missing something, but it appears to me quantum supremacy cannot be
proven empirically, only theoretically. Quantum supremacy means you can prove
that a quantum computer performs task A faster than any classical computer
_could_ do it. Not faster than a classical computer currently _does_ it. For
example, Schor's algorithm can factorize in polynomial time and classical
factorization takes superpolynomial time. The problem is that it's not easy at
all to show classical factorization is superpolynomial, and some people
actually think there's a high likelihood it's actually polynomial. So, quantum
supremacy is pretty much theoretical CS in the area of lower bounds for
_classical_ algorithmic problems.

------
imtringued
If that's true then why not keep it secret for a few more months until you are
confident to release it outright? This is definitively going to be
underwhelming.

------
dvduval
Supremacy is the word that seems awkward here. "We might have something to
show by the end of the year" seems to fall a little short of supremacy.

And there is something about a double exponential rate? It still seems like we
have a double exponential rate of "might show something".

Of course I do look forward to seeing the quantum computer playing chess or
something.

~~~
hedora
There is such a thing as a double exponential rate:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_exponential_function](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_exponential_function)

If their claims are correct, using the Wikipedia example, if they are as fast
as a cell phone in year one, then they should be faster than something like a
million of the biggest super computer in year two.

In year three, the incremental improvement will be incomprehensibly faster.

So, they are making some pretty strong claims. Their current claims are
definitely stronger than the ones that led to the AI winter.

(edit: and, if it could do physical simulation poorly in year one, by year
four or five, it would be simulating an incalculable number of universes
starting from the Big Bang, at much faster than real-time. I guess they could
then recursively contain comparable quantum computers, which would progress
even faster than the host machine?)

~~~
perl4ever
As shown in the graph in your link, the double exponential has a sharper
"elbow" and therefore it seems to me that if you start at the same y-value,
then the double exponential will lag behind the single one for a period of
time, which in practice might be any length.

------
wernercd
Somewhere out there... Skynet is gestating. What an exciting time to be alive.

