The Man Who Will Build Google’s Quantum Computer | Hacker News Reader

The Man Who Will Build Google’s Quantum Computer

wired.com

54 pointsagarttha20 comments

Open articleView on HN

He did a tech talk awhile back that goes into a bit more detail:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQmFEt6l6Tw

The article talks a lot more about the computer than the man,who I thought is supposed to be the subject.

Original article demonstrating that (currently) $15M of D-wave chip is at best worth $20,000 worth of GPUs...

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/420

Surprisingly smart move on Google's part IMO given how they've reacted to criticism in the past...

A semiconductor fab to make those GPUs is easily over one billion dollars.

Your point? IMO it's an intriguing but completely unproven technology. In contrast, GPUs (a newer technology than quantum computers) waltzed out of the gate with 100x to 1,000x speedups over Pentium IV CPUs barely a decade into their existence.

If D-Wave had shown anything like that, it would be a billion dollar company well on its way to disrupting NVIDIA and Intel in HPC. Instead, after nearly 30 years since the concept and 15 years after D-Wave's founding and ~$100M of VC, it's still just an expensive toy.

https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/category/physics/page/4/

All that said, hiring its best loyal opposition to fix that is the smartest thing I've seen Google do in a long time.

And just to end on a positive note, here's a great book on the subject that explains the promise of the technology in great detail:

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Computation-Information-Annive...

And here's another reason perhaps why Google is leaning so hard on this technology:

http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~nando/papers/quantumrbm.pdf

It originally cost almost $3 billion to sequence the human genome. The cost is now approaching $1000.

And you would be spending $3 billion _now_ to sequence the human genome in this analogy.

Nope. I'm saying that it's gonna cost $3 billion to figure out how to build the machine that can solve the problem several orders of magnitude faster. Once you understand how to build the machine, the second generation product will cost much less.

It seems to me the reason there was no evidence of quantum speed up is because there is no quantum speed up.. ie quantum physics is a statistical method and not a description of reality.. does no one else see this? When will the bubble burst?

I'd say statistics are used as a way to describe phenomenons, but afaik quantum computers rely on the phenomenons, not the model or technic used to describe them.

Interesting article. Glad that Google are now even more involved in this field.

Side quip: does anyone else find it really difficult to concentrate on the text of an article when there is an ad that moves around? I counted three such ads in the case of this Wired article. When they appear I usually open up Chrome's debugger and hide the divs. There's perhaps a product in there somewhere. It would be nice if there were a Chrome extension that froze all moving graphics (flash, gifs, etc.) with a click of the button.

This extension lets you easily hide page elements: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/page-eraser/ekofpc...

Not particularly easier than hiding the divs if you know how but good for everyone else.

Fixed: "The Person Who Will Build Google's Quantum Computer"

I wish Wired would only mention the sex of the person if it was relevant.

Edit: Do we casually mention someone's skin color, when it's not relevant?

What's the problem? Using "The Man" seems just fine (and pretty common): https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=the+man%2C+the...

Saying "the man" or "the woman" is much more informative than saying "the person" in a title, especially in an article that is as much about character as about research.

Much more informative? Really? You consider the gender of the subject to be that crucial in determining your classification of their character?

I consider the race to remove all description of a person really weird. Novels often detail down to the number of liver spots a character has, but in non-fiction, identifying race, skin color, fitness, etc., always draws a comment upset by the inclusion of identifying characteristics.

Especially when it comes to names from cultures I am not native to, a quick description of sex, age, build, and background gives me a picture of a person my brain would search for otherwise - because without a picture of the person (there isn't always one) I want the non-fiction narrative to be just as engaging as the fiction.

Yes. We humans base our judgement and evaluation of people on appearances. Sex is one of the first classifications we apply. Absolutely crucial in forming an impression.

Don't be daft. It might be possible to take you seriously if anyone, ever, had made the same complaint about an article entitled "The Woman Who Will XYZ". In fact, such articles are celebrated as encouraging more STEM awareness and participation by women, providing positive role models, and other benefits -- which I fully support.

Somehow this rubbed me the wrong way too. Not sure why really.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com