Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

i-opener t1_j9kn6e1 wrote

Google's breakthrough: It could be/could not be an ad until it's observed, at which point it is an ad.

712

anotherusercolin t1_j9mvqd4 wrote

Shroedinger's kitten mittens

39

Taograd359 t1_j9o8ivc wrote

Is your cat making too much and not enough noise?

6

Jim_Keen_ t1_j9p0o8n wrote

Shroedinger’s eggs suit these trying times.

2

dumpitdog t1_j9m96su wrote

They've made the same announcement so many times the Last 5 Years. Google's getting desperate.

16

Taograd359 t1_j9o8mtk wrote

I mean, isn’t the whole point of computer engineering to be constantly making new discoveries so as to make computers more efficient and advanced?

11

Iwanttolink t1_j9o3i3m wrote

Desperate? Google is a giant in the field of machine learning and quantum computing. They literally invented the tech powering ChatGPT back in 2017.

4

dumpitdog t1_j9onvn2 wrote

Russia/Soviets invented a lot of amazing technology which they could not capitalize on either. I have no respect for their ability to commercialize their tech as they seem to be incapable of producing commercial grade software and other. Didn't they just close their AI research facility in Edmonton?

1

Griffstergnu t1_j9mgx3s wrote

Ok I wish I had an award for you but take my upvote!

4

amlyo t1_j9ofz4j wrote

The user both clicked, and did not click on this and at the same time so you will charged for one click.

2

sdraz t1_j9oy157 wrote

And this is problematic, why? Ads pay bill brotjer.

2

i-opener t1_j9ozsyd wrote

No one said it's problematic, brotjer.

I mean, it could be/could not be problematic until it's observed, at which point...

2

adisharr t1_j9n9ilf wrote

I'm going to save this article for later so I can not understand it then.

341

Gloriathewitch t1_j9o4n3x wrote

Now you're starting to get quantum mechanics!

Basically, the whole point is it's impossible to understand (currently)

The way these things work is very bizarre.

63

eXponentiamusic t1_j9o5zqk wrote

The thing about quantum mechanics is that you both understand it and don't understand it at the same time. Until a new article comes out and then your position collapses.

74

commenterzero t1_j9oer7p wrote

Thats a good observation and so that's probably your problem

25

OrokaSempai t1_j9od3ub wrote

Pretty sure I read an article recently that explained quantum entanglement and it boiled down to math works different on the quantum scale, and in quantum math if you know 1 of 4 properties of a pair of entangled quantum particles, you can reason out an answer the same way we can figure out a property by knowing 3 of 4 properties. It's like trying to visualize infinity or a 4D object, our brains are not wired to conceive quantum math. It doesn't make sense because to us because it doesn't make sense in our corner of space time.

10

night___light t1_j9oly8f wrote

Sounds similar to the quantum theory I’m learning about in my Chemistry class. Schrodinger’s cat.

2

OrokaSempai t1_j9pabbz wrote

Shroddingers cat is about viewing a quantum particle changes the outcome, because everything we can measure with is way WAY bigger than the quantum particle. It's literally like investigating an ant with a marble, every time you touch the ant, the marble changes the properties of the ant somehow, speed, position, direction... so you can't get detailed info on the ant.

2

Ieatclowns t1_j9p1w27 wrote

Forgive me for asking but how do they work on it if it's impossible to understand?

1

futuneral t1_j9psbdl wrote

You can make a paper airplane without knowing anything about fluid dynamics. It could be crappy. You try making different variants and finally arrive at a good design, and even come up with a folding formula for the best airplane. All without having to understand how fluid dynamics works.

"No one understands quantum mechanics" is a bit of a meme. Scientists have a good grasp on principles, the math there actually provides some of the most precise predictions we've ever seen. What's not known is "why" and "what does this mean". The "shut up and calculate" motto works really well for coming up with solutions for practical applications. The philosophy of it is lagging behind though. And many in the field only care about this while having beers at the bar on Tuesdays.

2

djmevans t1_j9pv505 wrote

I wish I could give you an award but I can't at the moment. You definitely deserve one for the thorough and easy to understand answer to genuine confusion.

2

riceandcashews t1_j9pwgqo wrote

QM is relatively straightforward. The concept is this: particles don't actually have a position or spin or charge or mass or velocity. Instead there are different probabilities that we will observe a spin/charge/mass/velocity at various positions. There are 'dense' areas of probability where there is high likelihood to observe the particle/property and there are 'light' areas of probability where there is low likelihood to observe the particle property. You can think of these 'dense' and 'light' regions as crests and troughs of a wave. And just like water waves can interfere with each other (a big crest and a big trough cancel out in water, etc), so to can probability waves. As a result, instead of interacting 'classically' as objects, the quantum observations we make interact as waves of probability that can interact with each other like waves, resulting in all kinds of complex interference.

If that makes sense?

2

BIGELLLOW t1_j9qlcx1 wrote

It's not that it's not understood, but not fully understood. For instance, you can know enough about gravity to be able to regularly predict the path of a thrown ball or to figure out how much thrust is needed for orbit without fully knowing how gravity is "communicated" over the vastness of space.

Enough is known about quantum entanglement for us to build computers using the phenomenon, even if there are still plenty of things about quantum physics we still don't fully comprehend.

1

EstelleWinwood t1_j9pk3fc wrote

This is very wrong..it is certainly possible to understand quantum mechanics even conceptually. How could we be making quantum computers if no one understands quantum mechanics. It is just a ridiculous statement on the face of it.

1

Raze321 t1_j9omfhu wrote

Unfortunately observing the article seems to change its state so it's hard to get the full picture

5

Dohnakun t1_j9ol00e wrote

There's not much to not understand there, as well as there's not much to understand.

1

riceandcashews t1_j9pv5cx wrote

QM is relatively straightforward. The concept is this: particles don't actually have a position or spin or charge or mass or velocity. Instead there are different probabilities that we will observe a spin/charge/mass/velocity at various positions. There are 'dense' areas of probability where there is high likelihood to observe the particle/property and there are 'light' areas of probability where there is low likelihood to observe the particle property. You can think of these 'dense' and 'light' regions as crests and troughs of a wave. And just like water waves can interfere with each other (a big crest and a big trough cancel out in water, etc), so to can probability waves. As a result, instead of interacting 'classically' as objects, the quantum observations we make interact as waves of probability that can interact with each other like waves, resulting in all kinds of complex interference.

If that makes sense?

1

thislife_choseme t1_j9plt4j wrote

I wouldn’t trust any corporation about quantum computing. When a national laboratory or university publishes something then I will believe it.

A corporations motives are profit driven and highly untrustworthy where as government r&d projects are tested, reliable and pushing innovation to better society, sometimes for nefarious reasons but still more trustworthy than a for profit entity. And yes I know that the government ends up creating most IP and giving it to corporations to manufacture and sell, in not a fan of the shit neoliberal model.

0

Jabba6905 t1_j9nsepq wrote

Just trying to counteract Chatgpt and Bing with a 'Major Announcement'. They probably have a file full of these things to wheel out when they need a boost.

78

benign_said t1_j9offpw wrote

Don't think Bing is making em sweat too much rn.

11

petesapai t1_j9ohbnj wrote

Google is now a chore compared to ChatGPT.

You might not be using chat GPT enough to realize that a major shift is coming and Google is fully aware of this.

19

itsnickk t1_j9ojil9 wrote

Google sucks.

You used to be able to get hundreds of pages of pure search results. Now you get 1 page with 25% ads, 50% google-generated nonsense and maybe 5-6 results.

20

planet_oregon t1_j9slvoh wrote

Google can find a word or phrase or name where ever it is on the internet. ChatGPT will just make something up.

1

leif777 t1_j9u6emd wrote

I hate how Google dictates how people are forced to design their websites and pages... and then they will only put 5 results on the first page. They're making people jump through hoops for nothing. SEO is bullshit.

1

benign_said t1_j9ohiqk wrote

Yeah, I understand. I just meant that Bing has had a rather bad week in the press and gone viral as a meme for runaway/absurd AI trope.

6

petesapai t1_j9p8m74 wrote

I see that as growing pains. They're trying to pinpoint the perfect version of chatGPT on Bing.

I think most users don't even have access to it.

But yes, big as a standard search engine doesn't compare to google.

1

brittleirony t1_j9okio7 wrote

I hadn't realized ChatGPT had real time data now and live internet crawlers why didn't they announce that? Seems big.

2

petesapai t1_j9ouyer wrote

You're obviously being sarcastic, but even with the fact that it doesn't have the current full functionality that we all want, it has more value than many of the searches that are done on google. And if you take into consideration the fact Google has become a Pure ad based search tool, the advantage of chartGPT is even bigger.

3

[deleted] t1_j9ritut wrote

[deleted]

1

planet_oregon t1_j9sm2nc wrote

Yup. When your years of search results, emails, and documents get fed to the neural network ChatGPT will be remembered for the proof of concept.

1

tactical_laziness t1_j9pbqrl wrote

you're making ridiculous assumptions that Google's version won't be as useful as ChatGPT, and that's not even taking into account the huge amount of companies that already have all of their data in Google's Data Warehouses that will MUCH prefer to use Google's AI rather than pivot to a new vendor.

Dall-e was a game changer at first, and now it's the absolute worst image generator on the market

0

petesapai t1_j9rs92o wrote

Do you have a weird love for Google or something. Ridiculous how defensive you are about a search engine. Bizarre.

1

leif777 t1_j9u5uid wrote

I disagree. I've been using AI for as many things as I can think of and 50% I get the time I get the same results without having to scroll through garbage.

1

benign_said t1_j9uunpv wrote

I meant because their AI is very publicly being the meme of everything that people are scared about with AI.

1

ychuck46 t1_j9ol5u6 wrote

Yeah, the three people that use Bing are a huge threat to Google's 96% share of the worldwide search market.

2

Ezekiel_W OP t1_j9kf95m wrote

>Quantum computer systems have been hailed as the future of computing, able to make calculations that could be very difficult or impossible on the “classical” computers that we use today.
>
>But they are also prone to errors, that represent one of the major issues in the practical application of the technology.
>
>Now Google researchers say they have found a way of building the technology so that it corrects those errors. The company says it is a breakthrough on a par with its announcement three years ago that it had reached “quantum supremacy”, and represents a milestone on the way to the functional use of quantum computers.
>
>Researchers at Google Quantum AI said they have found a way to lower error rates as the size of the system increases, which they describe as being at a “break-even point”.
>
>Dr Hartmut Neven, engineering director at Google Quantum AI, said while there are still challenges that lie ahead, he thinks that at this stage “we can confidently promise a commercial value” for quantum computers.

73

voss749 t1_j9pmadz wrote

Trusting a Quantum processor with my life...not yet. Trusting it to crunch VR gaming code to allow for 240 fps 8k gaming...why not.

1

pelicSinsin t1_j9lk1je wrote

A four hour old Google article. Just tell me now, have they already killed it?

73

Komnos t1_j9lrs2i wrote

And launched three replacements at once, with about 80% of the features between them.

25

fodafoda t1_j9oeiuc wrote

and a chat app

1

Komnos t1_j9ork32 wrote

That's the category I mostly had in mind. Unlike Google Reader, where they just straight-up murdered it.

1

Hostilis_ t1_j9movqy wrote

With every one of these announcements, I'm more and more convinced we are really far away from a practical quantum computer. It feels like fusion in the 1970's.

If you're not convinced, all you have to do is ask what's the largest number that's been factored using Shor's algorithm. The answer is the same as it was in 2012: 21. Not quite the exponential progress we saw with transistors.

55

Feathercrown t1_j9myefw wrote

I'm not so sure; this could change that. As I understand it, error correction is the most major hurdle to scaling quantum stuff.

11

Hostilis_ t1_j9n0wlf wrote

To be honest, it's these results which makes me uninspired. In going from 17 physical qubits to 49, they were able to reduce the error rate from... 3.0 to 2.9 percent. Even though this is a big milestone for the field, in absolute terms it's abysmal.

This is also only with a tiny number of logical qubits. Scaling these systems to usable sizes will take decades.

16

TastyFennel540 t1_j9nj567 wrote

It will take decades, Google even alludes to that on their site, but to be honest, the insane power of quantum computers is worth it.

I don't think it will be like fusion in the sense, that most experts understand this task is complex and know how long this will take unlike fusion. Mostly No one thinks quantum computing will happen in the next 7 years.

There will be more computing advances in the near future to look forward too.

Maybe then we'll have a tech points cheat code for our civilization

5

Harbinger2001 t1_j9n9epa wrote

At some point the realization will dawn that it’s not going to be the breakthrough technology and funding will dry up. A few researchers will continue to putter on with a much reduced budget at a much slower pace. And nothing will still come of it until a fundamentally different engineering approach is found.

7

CoronaryAssistance t1_j9nrdz9 wrote

This is the part on a civ game where if you’ve misallocated resources in your development up till then you end up waiting 50 turns for your next tech

3

wanfuse1234 t1_j9ntswj wrote

Tech development starts as a nearly linear progression till it reaches an asymptotic phase where it quickly goes nearly exponential and then levels off and the curve inverts, we are about to reach the asymptotic phase in this tech, and with it n^2 problems will become solvable which is a whole new class of problems that can be solved, both good and bad, including AGI. We will reach the singularity likely within 10 years. Maybe 20.

2

riceandcashews t1_j9pwogb wrote

Oh definitely - QC is basically a dream for now. The real computing advancements in the next decade will come from Graphene

1

pale_splicer t1_j9laoy3 wrote

So basically one of the major hurdles to scaling up quantum computers has been solved, but the size and expense problems are still there so nothings really changed yet.

Cool.

32

luckymethod t1_j9n6sj5 wrote

Do they distribute goodie bags for being that cynical about everything?

23

Commyende t1_j9poj9w wrote

Yes, but they're not nearly as good as the ones they distribute for being sarcastic.

0

geek_fit t1_j9ngkm6 wrote

They then rebranded the discovery, announced an end of life for it.

...But not before announcing Youtube Quantum. A product with half the features and 2x the bugs.

31

ychuck46 t1_j9ol9dt wrote

Sounds like a page out of Microsoft's playbook.

1

maskedpaki t1_j9ki85s wrote

Cool haven't heard any quantum computing stuff in a while

Although it seems nobody cares much. AI is zooming ahead even without quantum

8

Zeric79 t1_j9ko2w8 wrote

AI + quantum computing will change the world so fast that something will break.

18

Cognitive_Spoon t1_j9lsqkx wrote

Interacting with ChatGPT feels so fast that I legit would not be surprised if there's a functional Qubit machine at the helm.

The speed of coherent language is just wild

2

ToothlessGrandma t1_j9m4peu wrote

The next 20 years is going to make the last 20 years seem like nothing in comparison.

6

bottom t1_j9lzrjj wrote

This is what people don’t seem to get. It’s so odd people aren’t thinking of this.

1

iobeson t1_j9nj4dr wrote

You must be new here. 90% of comments are doom and gloom.

3

Mikey_B t1_j9mbuhf wrote

This has been on the arxiv for several months. Like most of Google's work in this field, it's very impressive and pretty important from an R&D perspective (as far as I can tell from skimming it last year). Also, don't freak out, because one logical qubit doesn't exactly mean that we're just months away from the thousands or millions we need for something like Shor's algorithm.

5

Treczoks t1_j9nxad7 wrote

Lets wait until the first quantum computer can do a useful calculation, and not just run useless test benches.

5

INstyle4now t1_j9mol0t wrote

Got to do anything to get that share price back up

4

wagner56 t1_j9obf7r wrote

have all those drones to buy (delivery drones, not the institutional investors)

1

FallingBruh t1_j9kqkju wrote

Anyone who's super into quantum computing and think it's the future please watch sabine hossenfelders videos on qc. It's insightful.

3

kalakau t1_j9mfcqd wrote

as a practicing physicist you and others should be aware that sabine is intentionally contrarian in order to generate revenue. she's a populist capitalist, not a practicing physicist, and her content should be understood as entertainment, not necessarily as educational content, and certainly not as academic consensus. she often misrepresents (and in certain cases is entirely wrong about) research in fields she has no expertise in. there are threads at length in r/physics discussing this

54

Hostilis_ t1_j9niuzt wrote

She absolutely is a practicing physicist lol. She's also a far better science communicator than NDT or Michio Kaku, but she gets vitriol like this, because unlike those two, she's a staunch critic of the particle physicist community. And for good reason.

−7

Betaparticlemale t1_j9md91l wrote

She just likes to shit on everything while conveniently leaving out her own favored unprovable theory. It’s also not entirely about quantum computation. Quantum sensing technology is important too.

6

LongLightning t1_ja3xh9m wrote

Sabine is a slightly controversial recommendation. She's quite well known in the physics community for coming across as having very definite opinions about how science should be done and she presents these opinions in her videos in an extremely authoritative way. Because her audience is so broad, her opinions are sometimes taken as received wisdom when they are just opinions. When talking to other Phd's she tends to come off, if I'm generous, incredibly frank, if I'm less generous; rude and dismissive. Being a contrarian, within bounds, benefits her career so she has leaned into it. But the end result is something that is more entertaining then strictly educational. I would be more critical if she was lecturing college students like that. I understand she has to make money but I wish it didn't come at the cost of education.

1

UniversalMomentum t1_j9l3r1e wrote

Qantum sounds useful for some stuff, but realistically silicon can do so much and will still improve. The limitations right now are clearly programming, not really chips.

People have this way of thinking MORE is always better/useful, but it's not. The easiest thing that gets the job done is the most useful. The simplest design that does the job is better than the complex design that does more than you need. Getting that through to most people is hard, getting it through to a bunch of future tech fans is even harder.

Path of least resistance is the truly proven strategy and that also means path of least complexity. It's kind of like simplifying a math problem is the more premium version of logic than leaving it as complex as possible, but with engineering and cost of operation.

−1

DeepState_Secretary t1_j9m7cnh wrote

That’s not the point of quantum computers.

Its not about making faster classical computers. But rather that quantum computers could potentially solve problems and do things that classical computers cannot practically do irregardless of how good they are.

4

Fallacy_Spotted t1_j9mfab1 wrote

To be honest the better hardware has enabled worse software to an astounding degree. So much of it is a hot mess compared to the truly important stuff like bios, switch, and compiler code.

3

SnapcasterWizard t1_j9nh1hr wrote

Hey, what do you mean I don't need to ship an entire browser-stack just so my chat application can render shit with javascript?!!?

2

Literature-South t1_j9lfxq2 wrote

We're at the point with chips that they're so small that we're running into issues with Quantum tunneling causing errors. Silicon for chips is really at its limit. Moore's law has slowed considerably because of this.

1

Deadboy00 t1_j9lh8vl wrote

True. But engineers have come up with some clever ways to get around it and still offer performance gains.

Quantum computing is for problems that don’t have a clear solution. Classical computing isn’t going anywhere even as we look far into the future.

3

MINIMAN10001 t1_j9mwubg wrote

I mean the whole point of "Moore's law is dead" was that... Moore's law, is in fact dead. It wasn't the end of scaling, but the end of the self fulfilling prophecy which they targeted as the rate of scaling for decades has run its course.

It's not the end of transistor scaling, but instead the end of Moore's law, the golden age has come to a close and odds are the respective companies have already been working years at what they consider to be the solution going forwards.

AMD is looking to stack compute with memory. Nvidia looking into AI based image scaling.

2

mannaman15 t1_j9n912q wrote

Happy cake day! Also our user names are closer than any other I’ve seen on here. 🍻

2

JRsFancy t1_j9o5sp2 wrote

Explain to me like I'm 5, exactly what computations can quantum computers do that could/will benefit people on a daily basis?

3

svachalek t1_j9oq4ub wrote

The interesting bit about quantum is that it’s not a faster version of the kind of computing we have, it’s a different kind of math. Some things that we do now would be no better or maybe even worse as a quantum calculation. But some calculations that can’t even be attempted now because they would take the entire age of the universe to compute could be done more or less instantly as a quantum calculation.

The kinds of math it is good at are over my head, but include things like designing new medicines, predicting weather, and understanding deeper things about the universe.

Imagine going back to the early age of transistors when IBM predicted that there was a world market for potentially five computers, and foreseeing cat memes. We’re around there with quantum computers right now, maybe earlier. It could still be this is a fantasy that will never take off like flying cars. But if it does, I expect it will lead to some incredible advances in science and a billion stupid other things just because we can.

4

riceandcashews t1_j9pxswc wrote

In simple terms, a quantum computer can simultaneously calculate every possibility in a set of arbitrary size, whereas a classical computer would have to calculate each possibility separately.

So for small operations that's not so helpful, but for massive ones it would be revolutionary. For example, consider calculating the 3d shape of a molecule with hundreds of atoms, or the interaction of several molecules with dozens of atoms. It is impractical to do this kind of calculation with the proper math due to the number of calculations/possibilities/interactions. Right now we use a 'rough' kind of calculation that is close enough but not close enough for many fields like medicine creation and protein folding. QC would make that task easy. It would also make AI training dramatically easier. Etc.

2

Quantius t1_j9o6cy5 wrote

"Pay no attention to chatgpt, look over here it's quantum!"

2

ychuck46 t1_j9oky8z wrote

While quantum computers can tackle jobs that would take traditional computing much longer to solve, the main issue for me is that they can be prone to errors, and potentially lots of errors. Would you want your doctor to work with a quantum computing device while performing surgery on you? "We were expected to take out a kidney but instead the computer had us remove your penis. Sorry about that". How about putting a man or woman on the moon? "Gee, we almost got it right, but unfortunately since we were using a quantum computer the astronauts are floating off into the endless reaches of space since we didn't stick that landing trajectory".

2

lincolnrules t1_j9ply54 wrote

The transition from analog to digital is a relevant historical event that perhaps can be used as an analog for the digital to quantum shift.

1

ychuck46 t1_j9pnjx6 wrote

I don’t know. Analog to digital involved hard and fast rules, 1s and 0s being the biggest examples. Quantum computing is much more opaque meaning it will be more error prone. Hopefully you are right and they succeed, eventually.

2

apple_atchin t1_j9p4ops wrote

The same google that’s asking employees to share desks?

2

Password__Is__Tiger t1_j9qmhd9 wrote

And they’ll use this amazing tech breakthrough to make the best targeted ads for us!

2

FuturologyBot t1_j9knmjx wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Ezekiel_W:

>Quantum computer systems have been hailed as the future of computing, able to make calculations that could be very difficult or impossible on the “classical” computers that we use today.
>
>But they are also prone to errors, that represent one of the major issues in the practical application of the technology.
>
>Now Google researchers say they have found a way of building the technology so that it corrects those errors. The company says it is a breakthrough on a par with its announcement three years ago that it had reached “quantum supremacy”, and represents a milestone on the way to the functional use of quantum computers.
>
>Researchers at Google Quantum AI said they have found a way to lower error rates as the size of the system increases, which they describe as being at a “break-even point”.
>
>Dr Hartmut Neven, engineering director at Google Quantum AI, said while there are still challenges that lie ahead, he thinks that at this stage “we can confidently promise a commercial value” for quantum computers.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11951y6/google_announces_major_breakthrough_that/j9kf95m/

1

ComputerRound3376 t1_j9mbaki wrote

Sounds like they needed a “breakthrough” at Google after the last Google AI event. Trying to gain some street cred back to push those stock prices back up.

1

JazzRider t1_j9n0mbp wrote

Sorry, had to bail on the page because of all the ads.

1

lucpet t1_j9nea2g wrote

Yeah they've been testing it on YouTube and it isn't quite finished yet hahahaha

1

GetsTrimAPlenty2 t1_j9nj1r3 wrote

/r/savedyouaclick

> The scientists note that more work is needed to lower the error rates enough for effective computation, but added their work “demonstrates a fundamental requirement for future developments”.

1

cupcakesloth94 t1_j9njl0c wrote

So we need computers to correct our computers so they can be more perfect computers? Seems like a short time line for us humans in that sense

1

Chainedheat t1_j9oaq3o wrote

Without a “significant ALT & DEL” this is meaningless.

1

wagner56 t1_j9oau7b wrote

>say they have found a way of building the technology so that it corrects those errors.

make it work first and then outside a lab before announcing it is actually a 'breakthrough'

A practicle solution scaled to something useful - even if its still in a huge tank of liquid helium

1

MorRobots t1_j9oh250 wrote

Google announcing they are desperate for the stock to go up.

1

gortlank t1_j9op0fz wrote

“We have successfully applied flame stickers to the side of the quantum computer, increasing its speed by up to 300%”

1

kompootor t1_j9or1oo wrote

Google's blog post on this paper, which gets into more technical details and also explains their development timeline. It's probably required reading and should be stickied.

With that background, from OP's article:

>he thinks that at this stage “we can confidently promise a commercial value” for quantum computers.

Really? You got that from handling one scalability problem, so now it will have commercial value. Really?

According to their timeline they still need to scale up by 4 orders of magnitude (and note this error correction solution itself requires an additional multiplier to the number of qubits), with still no way to make even preserving entanglement not scale in difficulty with each qubit. That's in addition to the inability to predict the inevitable new tiers of problems you'll run into when your viability timeline requires scaling, again, on the order of 10,000x. And when you talk commercialization beyond a fad, you still need to find a convincing use case beyond uneconomical-for-daily-use cryptography and being a physics model of... itself.

This is a huge achievement. I like QC a lot. But there's a lot of hype, fads, BS, and fraud out there, and it's only going to get worse. And at the risk of sounding haughty, other science megaprojects learned (after a couple major f-ups) how to keep disciplined and stay quiet until their claims/projections were either substantive or they needed help. (In this case the project's claim is fine, but the director's projection is not.)

1

kompootor t1_j9oskl1 wrote

And this is not an isolated problem. I saw a talk by IBM recently that also said they had something in QC that was commercially viable, but after a few questions it was clear they had nothing even close to a realistic (if any) idea for what their business model would look like -- it was like it hadn't even occurred to them to consider that kind of thing before claiming something was commercially viable.

1

symmetricalboy t1_j9phi5m wrote

I'm aroused by your passion.

1

kompootor t1_j9puchn wrote

QC can't be developed past a fizzled-out tinker-toy if there's nobody willing to pay for it (there's a finite amount of VC out there, and they all want to believe there'll be returns before they die). There's nobody to pay for it if there's no viable commercial market. There's no viable commercial market if they can't even conceive of a business model.

(The government would fund QC for cryptography, sure, but meeting those requirements is many orders easier and cheaper than getting a generalized QC of the kind everyone's excited about.)

1

MsEmptiness t1_j9owfrs wrote

Is the technology they built to correct the quantum errors called the “Heisenberg Compensator”? Because that would be hilarious…

1

Shenso t1_j9p0r49 wrote

So they have a breakthrough like when they wrote the white paper for AI GPT 5 or so years ago... And did not make any commercial applications with it. So, I'm a bit concerned that they will shelve this too and then complain when another business finds a way to make it work for the general public...

1

Bath-Tub-Cosby t1_j9p7pfc wrote

Let me check the comments to see why this isn’t important. Reddit, you do not disappoint

1

waaaman t1_j9pgluu wrote

Sounds like this article was written all for 2 words. Commercial value

1

AdvocateReason t1_j9ph7ha wrote

Google execs: "We're losing in AI! Quantum Computer Dept, do you have anything to help tank the stock further?!"

The QCD: ".....uhhh....sure."

1

Free_Psychology717 t1_j9pjh0d wrote

Quantum computing is as much as a game changer as linear or binary computing was 70 years ago. Lots of people think it's like computing now but just better, or faster. It is exponentially better and faster but vastly different than traditional computing now. In theory an extremely powerful quantum computer could create entire realities much like the one we occupy. There really is no limit w the recent level of understanding we have of the quantum realm and this emergent tech.

1

Elodinauri t1_j9pnvwx wrote

Hahah. It’s for that guy who said he hasn’t heard anything about quantum computer development :)

1

BlurredSight t1_j9s6o15 wrote

This is cool and all but quantum computing just means either google gets even better encryption or just unlocked the means to destroy all encryption

1

SlimMacKenzie t1_j9mpbzx wrote

Hahaha they wish. All this memory and compute power is proving you can do now what those quantum machines will be doing in ten years.

−1

Moon-man-80 t1_j9mjufj wrote

I’ll be the first to admit my lack of just about any knowledge on this subject matter but find the announcement timing interesting given all the attention ChatGPT is getting lately … again very uninformed but feels like they did not just happen to stumble upon such a major breakthrough lol

−2

Boomietoom t1_j9ng2ja wrote

Imagine what quantum computing and natural language processing (chatGPT/AI) could do.

3

TheSensibleTurk t1_j9kkxhq wrote

This is the real deal. All this hype over AI is little different than the hype over cryptocurrency a few years ago. No, we're not gonna have automated luxury societies without money or employment within our lifetimes. Quantum computing otoh will actually be a revolutionary thing.

−22

rileyoneill t1_j9laj2s wrote

AI is already performing work that humans used to do. If 10% of jobs today are automated by 2030 that would be an enormous change in society.

15

[deleted] t1_j9kwacf wrote

[deleted]

4

TheSensibleTurk t1_j9ky76z wrote

They laid people off because they had gone on a hiring spree when the fed had quantitative easing. They over hired. Now, the fed stopped the gravy train and they had to scale back.

Jeff Bezos or his successor in Amazon are smart enough to realize that you need customers to make a profit. Profit, innovation and a strong demand economy are intertwined. It may be that a millennia from now, humans will have moved beyond any economic model today. But we won't be living Wall-E for the remainder of this century at a minimum.

−1

MattKozFF t1_j9ngqbk wrote

Neutral network ML is revolutionizing the world as we speak.

1

AnotherPersonsReddit t1_j9l0jj8 wrote

Yeah but what about AI running on a quantum computer?

0

TheSensibleTurk t1_j9l0xiz wrote

It will be useful in de-encrypying encryption that at the moment is considered foolproof. Apple et al will have to come up with a completely new model of encryption.

0

AnotherPersonsReddit t1_j9l16tm wrote

Right I get that, theoretically quantum computers can crunch hashes in no time. But in what way will it improve our society? The only thing I see happening is what's currently happening with technology, The elite well use it to further their own interests in leaving the rest of us with what we have now.

2

UniversalMomentum t1_j9l4s37 wrote

We don't need AI to automate most things. AI will be for figuring out very big problem and won't be like proliferate in Everday products.

The limits now are not chips, it's definitely the programming. Quantum chips will only have specific uses and silicon will keep doing most of the stuff.

A super smart AI would be nice, but what we need far more is just lots of robotic labor/automation to lower the costs of everything and increase the standard of living once our economic systems catch up to the new reality.

You can probably automate the majority of jobs just with silicon/machine learning and good programming. Most jobs don't require the ridiculous amounts of computation you can get from quantum. Really the most useful thing a real AI could do right now is to replace the 98% junk code that's currently out there to actually get the most of the chips. That or solve all human behavior problems, but I'm not holding my breath any AI will ever be that smart.

−1