Ok HN, for those skilled in the art, is this real?
And what are the implications for cryptography? (isn't that always the refrain, "until quantum computers this is safe?")
And what are the implications for cryptography? (isn't that always the refrain, "until quantum computers this is safe?")
The problem is that quantum annealing (basically, solving complex optimisation problems) is a small subset of what a full quantum computer can do. The algorithms we know can break crypto: Shor's algorithm (integer factorisation) and Grover's algorithm (database search) can only run on full quantum computers. eg. so far Shor's algorithm has only ever factored 21 into 3x7 (equivalent to breaking 5-bit RSA).
Things like Shor's are more obvious in gate based architectures, and would likely be faster - unfortunately there's not been as much as much scaling in building those architectures. DWave has stated that they're also less interested in these sorts of applications, probably for performance issues as well as actual value. Enabling the NSA to break crypto is ok, but selling 20 general purpose systems optimizers for drug manufacturers, engineering firms etc. might be more profitable or more interesting to them now. DWave addresses this distinction here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/10...
Like other commenters wrote earlier [1,2], Aaronson has done an excellent job over the years of calling them out on their bullshit; so check out his blog and media appearances. Also, for some reason, the signal-to-noise ratio in this topic is unusually low even among 'expert opinion' (as you can tell from that BBC article), so keep that in mind.
It's a good effort at any rate. There's a lot of strong negativity around DWave, which I find strange, given that it's existence isn't personally inconveniencing their critics in any way. If adiabatic quantum computing works it will really speed up the future tech timeline, so it's worth the effort.
And note this is invariably trumpeted loudly as in current production commercial end user applications. There are obvious financial / stock market reasons for these wild claims. But if you clear away the PR haze, the field is actually in the earliest research mode.
By computer analogy, whats going on in reality is the first ENIAC has been partially wired although it doesn't work perfectly and may in fact never meet its goals and may or may not ever have any direct effect on anyone, although existing unit record equipment manufacturers are watching nervously. The analogy of whats being presented by PR as a completed accomplishment is Zilog having shipped their fifty millionth Z80 processor and the living rooms of America are stuffed with "1980s home computers" which pretty much did have at least some effect on everyone alive either then or later.
One of the main problems with Quantum Crypto is it's implementation. You can make claims of infinite precision, and perfect entropy, etc. The problem is when you move beyond a blackboard you will be limited by the amount the amount that can be measured, which working with a classical computer ie IEEE754-128bit floating points are VERY finite.
The real arms race is between better detectors, and particle creators
The D-Wave implements, in hardware, a certain multivariable optimization algorithm. It is not a general purpose computer, and it has no implications for cryptography.