SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the 575-zettaflops-by-2371-sounds-reasonable dept.
Neven's Law is an observation of the growth of the quantum computing, somewhat akin to Moore's famous law, and describes how quickly quantum computers are gaining on classical ones. It is faster than you might think.
In December 2018, scientists at Google AI ran a calculation on Google's best quantum processor. They were able to reproduce the computation using a regular laptop. Then in January, they ran the same test on an improved version of the quantum chip. This time they had to use a powerful desktop computer to simulate the result. By February, there were no longer any classical computers in the building that could simulate their quantum counterparts. The researchers had to request time on Google's enormous server network to do that.
Neven's law suggests that following current trending, quantum supremacy—that point where an efficient quantum calculation cannot be simulated in any reasonable time frame on the most powerful classical computer—could happen within one year.
The rule began as an in-house observation before [Hartmut Neven, director of Google's Quantum Artificial Intelligence lab] mentioned it in May at the Google Quantum Spring Symposium. There, he said that quantum computers are gaining computational power relative to classical ones at a "doubly exponential" rate—a staggeringly fast clip.
With double exponential growth, "it looks like nothing is happening, nothing is happening, and then whoops, suddenly you're in a different world," Neven said. "That's what we're experiencing here."
Even exponential growth is pretty fast. It means that some quantity grows by powers of 2[.]
The first few increases might not be that noticeable, but subsequent jumps are massive. Moore's law, the famous guideline stating (roughly) that computing power doubles every two years, is exponential.
Doubly exponential growth is far more dramatic. Instead of increasing by powers of 2, quantities grow by powers of powers of 2[.]
Not all are convinced; classical computers are still improving subject to Moore's law (more or less), and quasi-quantum algorithms on classical computers continue to improve, pushing the goal-posts out further as well.
Still, even though the rate at which quantum computers are gaining on classical ones is debatable, there's no doubt quantum technology is racing towards an inflection point and the writing is, or is not, on the wall.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2019, @04:00AM (4 children)
https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/the-case-against-quantum-computing [ieee.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday June 22 2019, @02:08PM (3 children)
The guy's case is a bit certain, had to be amended (see editor's note), and doesn't consider quantum machine learning.
Repeating "10300 continuous parameters" seems to be for shock value. It doesn't mean you need that many variables, bytes of data storage, or whatever.
I think we'll know that quantum computing is dead if Google, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, and others [wikipedia.org] lose interest. Which they might if it becomes clear that 100+ qubit chips are unusable or not better than classical computers, even with error rates and other problems addressed.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Sunday June 23 2019, @01:59PM (2 children)
I’m a Quantum Skeptic, but I agree with you. Talking about big numbers isn’t necessarily scary, on the contrary, it can appear to reinforce the argument that Quantum Advocates are making (“look at all those possible states”).
As far as Neven’s Law goes, it depends on where you are along the curve (way left!) before things start bending upward, and then you have to not hit any natural physical limits first (see Moore’s Law).
Surprised to see this in a SA article.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday June 23 2019, @02:35PM (1 child)
Surprised about the SA article (actually a reprint from Quanta magazine, which has skeptical [quantamagazine.org] articles [quantamagazine.org]) or IEEE?
Meant to say "uncertain" above but "certain" works too (insert quantum joke).
I only just read the Neven's law TFA this morning. Big Google man says they are having those kinds of improvements, then it could well be real. And we may only have to wait months before they announce concrete details. It's not clear what they would actually be using it for, but machine learning is a strong bet. Real quantum computers (not D-Wave annealer) are supposed to be able to do everything a classical computer can, so maybe they can use it in place of many classical computers too.
Article also quotes Scott Aaronson:
AFAIK he has been the biggest quantum skeptic for years. Pack it up, folks. It's time for the Quantum Age.
One thing that could be annoying: as long as quantum computers require stuff like liquid helium cooling, big companies like Google will control the powerful quantum sauce and only give you a taste through da cloud. We need room temperature quantum processors.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Sunday June 23 2019, @02:54PM
I always considered Aaronson to be a Quantum Advocate, but only from the mathematical/theoretical side. I have his book, but only made it through three or four chapters before getting lost and picking up something else. I should take another crack at it. Check out his blog if you haven’t. I have a lot of respect for his work, but I don’t agree with what he says in that quote. The burden of proof is on those who say they can make it work.
It’s when engineers start talking about QC implementations that things get even fuzzier, and my gut tells me that that shouldn’t happen. I’d love to hear an explanation of how the moleclur level I/O works. Guess it’s proprietary and I’d have to sign an NDA...