
Google Announced their D-Wave 2X Quantum Computer Works (2015) - ajessup
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/a18475/google-nasa-d-wave-quantum-computer/
======
Analemma_
As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't work until Scott Aaronson says it works.

EDIT: My comment was kind of snarky and curt without much info; I need to be
better about that. I did read Scott's post when it was published, and the
consensus I got from it is that D-Wave's device achieves a constant-factor
speedup, not a quantum one. I just think, with that being generally accepted
by all parties now, it's pretty disingenuous to keep calling it a "quantum
computer", when it's really a (faster) classical computer that uses quantum
mechanical effects. I mean, the Intel chip in my laptop also uses QM effects
because the feature size is so small, but nobody calls it a quantum computer.
Maybe that's the media's fault though. Are D-Wave/Google themselves still
saying "quantum computer"?

SECOND EDIT: Rereading Scott's post more carefully, it seems like Google and
D-Wave are now calling it a "quantum annealing device" and are more
forthcoming about the lack of quantum speedup. So unless they're talking out
of both sides of their mouth and still saying "quantum computer" to the
popular press to build hype, I guess everyone is a reasonable person after all
and it's the media's fault as usual.

~~~
radioactivist
This article and the discussed work was put out last December (see
[http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02206](http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.02206)). Scott
Aaronson weighed in around that time; see
[http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2555](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2555).

~~~
daveguy
The blog entry includes a reference to the HN discussion in the updates toward
the end.

The previous HN discussion clarifies that google reports a constant (although
large) increase in speed for a specific application.

------
toxikitty_
> We note that there exist heuristic classical algorithms that can solve most
> instances of Chimera structured problems in a timescale comparable to the
> D-Wave 2X. However, we believe that such solvers will become ineffective for
> the next generation of annealers currently being designed.

From the abstract.

~~~
nickpsecurity
I was wondering if these exist. My last counter of D-Wave is they could be
using a good algorithm with specialized ASIC's or regular HPC hardware in a
cluster. As in, they're certainly accelerating things but making up the
quantum part. That possibility has to be eliminated.

That there's classical algorithms that might get a similar speedup, esp if on
custom hardware, validates my prior concern.

------
xchip
google shouldn't call anything wave :)

~~~
justsayin16
Just for the anonymous record... I came up with the design for Google Wave, it
was a protocol I was working on. I won't name names but I met someone whose
name rhymes with Cint Verf at a charity dinner and in a stupid attempt to
impress him hoping he'd want to do business described every aspect of the
exact product they came out with over a series of emails 8 months before
Google published Wave.

Just to include me in the development somehow would have meant so much to me,
instead I feel stabbed in the back by someone who was a hero to me. It's my
fault because I foolishly told him and I didn't publish my code first but
that's still how I feel.

~~~
esrauch
What?

------
davesque
I thought it wasn't considered a quantum speedup if you're talking about a
constant factor. Otherwise, how are you going to jump across complexity
classes?

------
zevkirsh
talk about changing goal posts and pivoting, anything to save face about
rushing success.

quantum everything is obviously the future of technology, but it is a long
long path.

i get more excited about fundmanetal quantum research and research on new
methods of testing quantum states.

people claiming to have full working computers of any value, if they even do
work-------------are just blowing smoke and mirrors like elizabeth holmes from
theranos. nearly criminal behavior , alleging things are simply what they
aren't in order to get money.

there is an epidemic of hack science and engineering occuring to secure and
suck in scarce funds. and where-ever there is military related big money the
likelihood of fraud is even bigger.

read the book about the hafnium bomb and you will understand why the military
investors are frequently so easy to scam---a two pronged version of greed and
desire to have the unstoppable weapons.

paradoxically enough , if more pre-investigation was done, they'd have more
money to spend on real R&D. i guess economists would just call this a massive
case of malinvestment.

------
tlrobinson
I got about halfway through the article wondering why the NSA wanted to talk
about their quantum computer so much, then realized it was _NASA_.

------
dang
We changed the url from [http://trendintech.com/2016/05/07/google-announced-
their-d-w...](http://trendintech.com/2016/05/07/google-announced-their-d-
wave-2x-quantum-computer-succesfully-works/) to one of the (more) original
articles about this, that didn't specifially get discussed last year.

There were a few discussions at the time (e.g.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10698317](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10698317))
but perhaps the community is interested in more.

