Google's Quantum Supremacy Challenged By Ordinary Computers, For Now (newscientist.com) 18
Google has been challenged by an algorithm that could solve a problem faster than its Sycamore quantum computer, which it used in 2019 to claim the first example of "quantum supremacy" -- the point at which a quantum computer can complete a task that would be impossible for ordinary computers. Google concedes that its 2019 record won't stand, but says that quantum computers will win out in the end. From a report: Sycamore achieved quantum supremacy in a task that involves verifying that a sample of numbers output by a quantum circuit have a truly random distribution, which it was able to complete in 3 minutes and 20 seconds. The Google team said that even the world's most powerful supercomputer at the time, IBM's Summit, would take 10,000 years to achieve the same result. Now, Pan Zhang at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing and his colleagues have created an improved algorithm for a non-quantum computer that can solve the random sampling problem much faster, challenging Google's claim that a quantum computer is the only practical way to do it. The researchers found that they could skip some of the calculations without affecting the final output, which dramatically reduces the computational requirements compared with the previous best algorithms. The researchers ran their algorithm on a cluster of 512 GPUs, completing the task in around 15 hours. While this is significantly longer than Sycamore, they say it shows that a classical computer approach remains practical.
Like fusion... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not true, right now quantum computers can be set up to solve factoring 15 almost as fast as a bright six year old who has been taught what multiplication and factors are!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Like fusion... (Score:4, Interesting)
What's with the negative nancying and attempts to demoralize? We couldn't even get a fusion reaction to work at all until 50 years ago. Recall that it took, what, 10,000 years to go from wheel to automobile. How many years of ridicule did inventors have to ignore from people like you before the first airplane was built? If we were hitting a brick wall on fusion, you'd have a case .. as it is now .. there is progress shown routinely.
Re: (Score:2)
call of duty.
can this quantum computer help me.
if not.
then so what
Re: (Score:2)
We couldn't even get a fusion reaction to work at all until 50 years ago.
We rather spectacularly demonstrated [wikipedia.org] man-made fusion about 70 years ago...
Re: (Score:2)
It's more an attempt at being realistic. He didn't say QC will never be practical, just that it makes no sense to make any plans for it for the next 20 years at least. If a startup tells you you can get on now for a low low price and be rich next year when their quantum computer takes over the industry, check your wallet and RUN AWAY!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. Fusion we have natural cases, H-Bombs and actual short ignitions in test reactors. We also have steady progress. Quantum-Bullshit we have some exceptionally specialized nonsense "computations" that basically are a QC simulating some quantum effects. We still do not know whether QCs can actually do the things some people hope they can because we have zero examples of anything like it happening. So while practical fusion is somewhere 30-100 years in the future and if we keep up the work we will
Re: (Score:2)
We have natural cases of quantum computing, and steady progress. Constructing a quantum computer is basically trying to take one of those natural cases and add some ability to reconfigure it in useful ways.
The question is only whether it's practical to scale up. Same with fusion, except we've been working on that long enough we're pretty sure we know the answer.
Well that is sad (Score:3)
Google's quantum supremacy claim was so contrived to begin that it is surprising that a classical computer can actually be superior to it. Recall what they did back then was, essentially, "simulate a quantum computer using a quantum computer". It was literally like throwing a ball in a multi-planetary gravitational field, noting its path, and then claiming you can calculate n-body problems faster than a computer by using "gravitational computation."
3 mins vs 15 hours? (Score:2)
That's several orders of magnitude difference. Seems like Google's supremacy is holding for now.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not if you consider the setup time for the quantum computation that they did off the clock.
Their claim is like saying we can launch a Saturn V in 10 seconds. 9...8...7...6 because they just pop into existence complete with trained crew on the launch pad.
Re: (Score:2)
Now review the definition of "Quantum Supremacy" given in the fucking summary.
The claim is that classical computers can't even complete the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, the distinction is about speed, not computability.
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying that you disagree with them so strongly, they must not mean what they say, they must mean something I'd agree with.
That's stupid. Just fucking look it up to verify what the claims are. This is truly what quantum computer advocates believe, and actually if they're wrong then there is no reason to have quantum computers at all because in the best case they're (obviously) slower at every traditional algorithm.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's correct. Your definition of quantum supremacy is incorrect, as is the poster you replied to.
Quantum supremacy is solving a problem it's *impractical* to solve with a conventional computer. Thus the "would take longer than the age of the universe" you usually see attached to the claim.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what quantum supremacy means. Any computer can complete any computation a quantum computer can. It's all parallel too, so if it's not fast enough for you, you just need to build a bigger computer. Quantum supremacy is solving a problem for which it would be completely impractical to just build a bigger computer.
It's a silly bar, but humans love silly bars.