Google or just call them GOD for short?

[Doctor Amadeus]

Google says it's achieved quantum supremacy

Google says it's achieved quantum supremacy
Engadget Rachel England,Engadget 10 hours ago
Reactions Reblog on Tumblr Share Tweet Email

Google is standing by its claim that it's achieved quantum supremacy -- marking a major milestone in computing research. The company first made the claim back in September, and while disputed by competitors, Google's research paper has now been published in the scientific journal Nature.

Quantum supremacy is a big deal, because it encapsulates the ability of quantum computers to solve problems that current technology couldn't even begin to attempt. Google's paper explains how its 53-bit quantum computer -- named Sycamore -- took just 200 seconds to perform a calculation that would have taken the world's fastest supercomputer 10,000 years.

In theory, this capability opens a lot of doors to future technologies, such as designing better batteries and medicine, or minimizing emissions from farming chemicals. It could also help to advance existing technologies such as machine learning. However, Sycamore's feat has almost no practical use at this stage -- it was designed simply to show that a quantum computer could perform as expected.

Nonetheless, it's an important first step towards a technology that could have a major impact on our lives -- even if that's still some years away. In an interview with MIT Technology Review, Google CEO Sundar Pichai likened the experiment to the first flight by the Wright Brothers. "The first plane flew only for 12 seconds, and so there is no practical application of that," he said. "But it showed the possibility that a plane could fly."

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/2...supremacy.html

So what do you think, not often I am impressed by news reports about supposed breakthroughs but with google, I have to admit, I am pretty shocked.

What is your take on this, and how do you think this will effect our world in the future and down the line?

Personally my take is that once the technology comes that we can merg biological technology with the artificial and synthetic, then and only then would I say we might have a real fear of the next stage of human evolution

[PC2]

I'll go with "much ado about nothing". The qubit count will have to double from 53 a few times before it can solve any real world problems. Even then it will mainly be good for search and optimization problems and various niche applications. The large majority of what we do on classical computers can't be parallelized or sped up on a QC.

[Dadwen]

But can it run Crysis?

[PC2]

But can it run Crysis?

Yes because a universal QC can equivocate a classical computer, so if it is large and fast enough a QC can do anything your computer can do. Just not with 53 qubits.

[Rustedsaint]

I’ll wait till they show one with practical uses, right now it’s still in its infancy

[Flame6]

Cool, but changes nothing for the average person in the short term.

[Bender]

IBM stated that the 10000 year figure was bs. The actual time was something along the lines of 2,5 days.

[PC2]

IBM stated that the 10000 year figure was bs. The actual time was something along the lines of 2,5 days.

Yeah they may have been "flag planting" to some degree and trumping up the results. Each QC developer wants the "quantum supremacy" title, even though the concept is dumb because you can simply cherry pick a trivial problem that happens to be eligible for the parallel speed-up.

This is progress for the field but in my experience QC news tends to cause unnecessary hype among laypeople who don't really understand what can and cannot be done by QCs.

[Powerogue]

Initial reaction: Bah, overreacting. a 53-bit quantum computer? That's barely a blip, we're already moving past terabytes out here...

"a ten thousand year computation done in 200 seconds."

Okay. Maybe I spoke too soon.

IBM stated that the 10000 year figure was bs. The actual time was something along the lines of 2,5 days.

That's still an upgrade by a factor of 1,080. Even at its lowest estimates that is a pretty big deal.

[Bender]

That's still an upgrade by a factor of 1,080. Even at its lowest estimates that is a pretty big deal.

Certainly. However, to call the google figure significantly off is the understatement of the century. How much faster it actually is compared to what google initially said is off by a factor of 1,46 million.

[PC2]

Initial reaction: Bah, overreacting. a 53-bit quantum computer? That's barely a blip, we're already moving past terabytes out here...

"a ten thousand year computation done in 200 seconds."

Okay. Maybe I spoke too soon.

That's still an upgrade by a factor of 1,080. Even at its lowest estimates that is a pretty big deal.

But we shouldn't think about this in terms of time, but rather what is the value(impact) of the problem solved by the computation. Everything else is fluff.