Frank Arute, Kunal Arya, Ryan Babbush
Dave Bacon, Joseph C. Bardin, Rami Barends, Rupak Biswas, Sergio Boixo, Fernando G. S. L. Brandao, David A. Buell, Brian Burkett, Yu Chen, Zijun Chen, Ben Chiaro, Roberto Collins, William Courtney, Andrew Dunsworth, Edward Farhi, Brooks Foxen, Austin Fowler, Craig Gidney, Marissa Giustina, Rob Graff, Keith Guerin, Steve Habegger, Matthew P. Harrigan, Michael J. Hartmann, Alan Ho, Markus Hoffmann, Trent Huang, Travis S. Humble, Sergei V. Isakov, Evan Jeffrey, Zhang Jiang, Dvir Kafri, Kostyantyn Kechedzhi, Julian Kelly, Paul V. Klimov, Sergey Knysh, Alexander Korotkov, Fedor Kostritsa, David Landhuis, Mike Lindmark, Erik Lucero, Dmitry Lyakh, Salvatore Mandrà, Jarrod R. McClean, Matthew McEwen, Anthony Megrant, Xiao Mi, Kristel Michielsen, Masoud Mohseni, Josh Mutus, Ofer Naaman, Matthew Neeley, Charles Neill, Murphy Yuezhen Niu, Eric Ostby, Andre Petukhov, John C. Platt, Chris Quintana, Eleanor G. Rieffel, Pedram Roushan, Nicholas C. Rubin, Daniel Sank, Kevin J. Satzinger, Vadim Smelyanskiy, Kevin J. Sung, Matthew D. Trevithick, Amit Vainsencher, Benjamin Villalonga, Theodore White, Z. Jamie Yao, Ping Yeh, Adam Zalcman, Hartmut Neven, John M. Martinis
2019 · Nature
Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels
4 selected excerpts · 4 total mentions
Google's "quantum supremacy" paper was about a 53 qubit chip in 2019 [1]. This year, they reported having 70 qubits [2]. Looking at the papers (and supplements), the gate fidelities and qubit lifetimes have stayed roughly the same. This really doesn't look like anything like Moore's law to me. [1] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5 [2] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.11119
> Can these computers actually do something better than their classical counterparts, right now? The answer is yes. Sometimes this is referred to as 'quantum supremacy' and some researchers at Google declared it in 2019. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1666-5 https://ai.googleblog.com/2019/10/quantum-supremacy-using-pr...
Quantum computers do more than produce random numbers. They follow predictable statistics predicted by quantum mechanics. These computers also run programs. Maybe your definition of “quantum computer” doesn’t agree with the field at large. What’s your definition? What do you think about Google’s supremacy experiment? Do you have objections to their results? [0] This is one of many papers by Google, IBM, Rigetti, and many other quantum computer manufacturers. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1666-5
It's been demonstrated already using a random circuit. Two random strings that match SHA, are practically speaking just toy examples using random useless information. There's no meaning to the numbers except that when you apply an operation to them the have the same output. Now, instead of the random string, you have a random circuit. And the output is the goal. The random circuit is as useful to you as the random string. But using a quantum computer you can compute its state when operating. With a traditional computer it is very hard. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1666-5 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4317
More from the same topics.
Scott Aaronson
In honor of Alan Turing's hundredth birthday, I unwisely set out some thoughts about one of Turing's obsessions throughout his life, the question of physics and free will.
Tamara M. Davis, Charles H. Lineweaver
We use standard general relativity to illustrate and clarify several common misconceptions about the expansion of the Universe.
Seth Lloyd
Computers are physical systems: what they can and cannot do is dictated by the laws of physics.
Art Hobson
Quantum foundations are still unsettled, with mixed effects on science and society.