Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday December 13, @08:53AM   Printer-friendly

Google recently unveiled its Willow quantum chip, claiming it achieves "beyond classical computation" by completing a random circuit sampling (RCS) task in under five minutes—a task that would take classical supercomputers an estimated 10 septillion years.

While RCS benchmarks lack practical applications, Google argues they are foundational for assessing quantum capabilities.

More practically, Google tries to make the case that RCS performance should be the metric by which all quantum computers are judged. According to Hartmut Neven, the founder of Google Quantum AI, "it's an entry point. If you can't win on random circuit sampling, you can't win on any other algorithm either." He adds RCS is "now widely used as a standard in the field."

However, other companies, including IBM and Honeywell, instead use a metric called quantum volume to tout their breakthroughs. They claim it points to a more holistic understanding of a machine's capabilities by factoring in how its qubits interact with one another. Unfortunately, you won't find any mention of quantum volume in the spec sheet Google shared for Willow, making comparisons difficult.

The true breakthrough lies in Willow's reduced error rates as more qubits are added, marking progress toward scalable, practical quantum systems. However, critics highlight the absence of comparative metrics like quantum volume, leaving questions about its real-world impact.

Read more here


Original Submission

This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by pTamok on Friday December 13, @09:40AM (1 child)

    by pTamok (3042) on Friday December 13, @09:40AM (#1385321)

    Shtetl-Optimized: The blog of Scott Aaronson: The Google Willow thing [scottaaronson.blog]

    Anyway, all yesterday, I then read comments on Twitter, Hacker News, etc. complaining that, since there wasn’t yet a post on Shtetl-Optimized, how could anyone possibly know what to think of this?? For 20 years I’ve been trying to teach the world how to fish in Hilbert space, but (sigh) I suppose I’ll just hand out some more fish. So, here are my comments:

    He links also to Sabine Hossenfelderon Chitter [x.com]

    ...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....

    and has some criticism of her statement above.

    Quantum computing will remain 'meh', until it isn't. Much like practical nuclear fusion.

    • (Score: 2) by driverless on Saturday December 14, @04:37AM

      by driverless (4770) on Saturday December 14, @04:37AM (#1385398)

      Why does this surprise anyone? This is exactly how advances in quantum work, you manipulate the benchmark or measure in order to make it seem like you've achieved something. This is why you see quantum supremacy announced every six months or so, over and over again.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Friday December 13, @05:35PM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Friday December 13, @05:35PM (#1385362) Journal

    AI, Quantum Computing, memristors, cold fusion, facial recognition, self-driving cars ...

    Unless there's some weird physical principle that forbids large scale quantum coherence, seems we will eventually have quantum computing at a usable scale. In 20 years, maybe? Lot of reports of small scale success.

    I guess AI that actually deserves the 'I' moniker will also eventually come about, but much later, 100 years minimum. I think we've grossly underestimated how hard it is to achieve intelligence. A considerable amount of SF has intelligence just happening, accidentally. Skynet somehow just became intelligent. V'Ger (and Nomad) too, but at least it was hinted that aliens may have helped them become intelligent. Part of the problem is deciding just what constitutes intelligence. I rate the average insect as way smarter than ChatGPT. How does ChatGPT learn? Can a user teach ChatGPT? No!

(1)