pull down to refresh

I'm sure many of you have heard about Google's claim to have broken records with their quantum computer project. Its very impressive. I was listening to a local radio talk show talk about it and my BS meter was breaking.
This morning I saw @petertodd shared a post from Sabine Hossenfelder where she explains a bit of the context missing from Google's press release. It confirmed some suspicions I've had.
Here is what she wrote.
I see a lot of confusion about Google's Monday press release about quantum supremacy, so let me try to clarify a few things.
They say they did a computation on a ca 100 qubit chip much faster than a conventional (super)computer could do. The particular calculation in question is to produce a random distribution. The result of this calculation has no practical use.
They use this particular problem because it has been formally proven (with some technical caveats) that the calculation is difficult to do on a conventional computer (because it uses a lot of entanglement). That also allows them to say things like "this would have taken a septillion years on a conventional computer" etc.
It's exactly the same calculation that they did in 2019 on a ca 50 qubit chip. In case you didn't follow that, Google's 2019 quantum supremacy claim was questioned by IBM pretty much as soon as the claim was made and a few years later a group said they did it on a conventional computer in a similar time.
So while the announcement is super impressive from a scientific pov and all, the consequences for everyday life are zero. Estimates say that we will need about 1 million qubits for practically useful applications and we're still about 1 million qubits away from that.
Also, it's been a recurring story that we have seen numerous times in the past years, that claims of quantum "utility" or quantum "advantage" or quantum "supremacy" or whatever you want to call it later evaporate because some other group finds a clever way to do it on a conventional computer after all.
Take it from someone that has been around the tech world for a while. You need to ALWAYS keep your skeptical hat on. Not to take away from the work these people are doing there are always incentives to frame things in a way that makes them appear more favorable. This happens with every business but for some reason people are extra gullible with tech business news.
One reason I shared this commentary was that I meet people that periodically freak out about quantum computing. I've been hearing about it for so long I kinda tune it out but I want people to hear a rational counter to the hype. The sky is not falling. Not yet at least.
reply
63 sats \ 0 replies \ @jk_14 12 Dec
Estimates say that we will need about 1 million qubits for practically useful applications
4k logical qubits can be enough for breaking RSA/ECDSA
And, the Google recent discovery is not about 105 qubits, but about error correction is improving with increasing number of qubits, exactly opposite to all previous approaches. And that's the only crucial thing here.
In other words, you won't simply need milions of physical qubits anymore - to reach 4k logical level.
reply
The problem is that science journalism is unbelievably shit.
The journalists just take whatever the scientists tell them because honestly the journalists are not equipped to challenge or provide nuance in any way.
But I think this needs to change. Journalists like to think of themselves as holding those in power to account, they should approach "science" the same way
reply
I mean... You described tech journalism, government journalism, and * journalism
reply
Damn, you're right
reply
Scott Aaronson seems to be a reliable voice on this topic. His take is on his blog
reply
Update: Here’s Sabine Hossenfelder’s take. I don’t think she and I disagree about any of the actual facts; she just decided to frame things much more negatively. Ironically, I guess 20 years of covering hyped, dishonestly-presented non-milestones in quantum computing has inclined me to be pretty positive when a group puts in this much work, demonstrates a real milestone, and talks about it without obvious falsehoods!
That is a good response. I am by no means well versed in this space but I could track with his post and he does indeed seem to agree with Sabine's take but in a less negative fashion. Where's the fun in that? jk
reply
Thanks. I'll check it out.
reply
When I was listening to the radio host guy try to explain it and he described the cooling required for the processor... all I could think about what the amount of energy and likely inefficient use of energy required for these processors(the are brand new after all).
The costs of running these machines if they do actually find practical use for them is going to be insane. We are going to need massive stores of energy... Solar isn't gonna cut it.
reply
It has been said again and again and again but people still don't get it 🤦🏻‍♀️ Quantum Computers are not computers but fast. Instead they do 1 algorithm. If this algorithm isn't Grover or Shor or something like that you DO NOT have to care.
reply
I think most people don't know this because the incentive is to NOT minimize them.
Second people that do understand that think "encryption is broken".
reply
Lots of things are like this. Its such a breakthrough, that will have no significance on the world!
reply
For sure.
reply