Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google To Build Quantum Information Processors

Soulskill posted about a month and a half ago | from the remember-when-google-was-a-search-company dept.

Google 72

An anonymous reader writes The Google Quantum AI Team has announced that they're bringing in a team from the University of California at Santa Barbara to build quantum information processors within the company. "With an integrated hardware group the Quantum AI team will now be able to implement and test new designs for quantum optimization and inference processors based on recent theoretical insights as well as our learnings from the D-Wave quantum annealing architecture." Google will continue to work with D-Wave, but the UC Santa Barbara group brings its own areas of expertise with superconducting qubit arrays.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

They learned it wasn't a true quantum processor... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47815605)

...and now are developing their own version based on their 'learnings'.

Re:They learned it wasn't a true quantum processor (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a month and a half ago | (#47816449)

In other words, they are stupid. Not a surprise, but the cost is petty cash for them.

Re:They learned it wasn't a true quantum processor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47817217)

>and now are developing their own version based on their 'learnings'.

Easy: it is and isn't a quantum processor, and if you check, either it is, it isn't, or the cat dies and you'll never know which to expect.

Re:They learned it wasn't a true quantum processor (1)

Jason Goatcher (3498937) | about a month and a half ago | (#47819355)

Your information is old, it was concluded that it WAS a quantum computer, but only in certain cases.

Re:They learned it wasn't a true quantum processor (1)

sarkeizen (106737) | about a month and a half ago | (#47821005)

What does that even mean? Do you mean that it outperforms classical machines in certain cases? or are you just being funny?

Google Quantum AI Team? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47815609)

Now there's a business card I want to have....

Re:Google Quantum AI Team? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a month and a half ago | (#47815643)

"Google Quantum AI Team" sounds less like a job title and more like a section of the datacenter with atypically touchy cooling needs...

Re:Google Quantum AI Team? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47815777)

Firefox auto-updated this am.
Seems to work fine.
Memory use seems about the same.
Burma shave.

Re:Google Quantum AI Team? (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a month and a half ago | (#47816757)

Good troll. I was really, really tempted to give you a "Funny" mod. Here's some kudos instead.

Re:Google Quantum AI Team? (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about a month and a half ago | (#47815853)

Now there's a business card I want to have....

They originally wanted to call it the Google Quantum A Team, but they were warned off that name after receiving an anonymous email that was liberally sprinkled with the word "fools" and signed with the moniker "Mr T"

Proper motivation (1)

HuguesT (84078) | about a month and a half ago | (#47815613)

It will be nice to see if Google's interests and motivations will yield interesting, more practical results, in this area.

Re:Proper motivation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47815631)

Their motivation to gather more data on everyone?

Re:Proper motivation (5, Interesting)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about a month and a half ago | (#47815677)

Their motivation, in this area and all of the other scattered stuff, like cars and drone delivery and rocket prizes and stuff is called, "R&D."

They aren't worried about foreseeable payback.

You can bet your ass they will stumble across some neat shit.

All that advertising stuff has given them deep pockets.

Bill Gates buys art and tries to fix hunger and poverty with his billions.

Google is more into implementing theoretical junk to see if there is something there or if there's something nearby.

Re:Proper motivation (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a month and a half ago | (#47815799)

It's also a matter of diversification. Google has done well enough in online advertising that pushing much harder will just lead to an antitrust shitstorm.

Given that, they basically have three options:

1. Sit back, relax, and move as much profit as possible through the company until somebody eventually 'disrupts' them. This is pretty much risk free in the short term, and probably popular with some shareholders; but it's pretty fatalistic in the long term, and fatalism isn't a personality trait that Silicon Valley tends to cultivate.

2. Sit back, take profits from advertising business and invest them in a diversified portfolio and gradually morph into some sort of fund as amount invested grows and, sooner or later, advertising business suffers a setback and/or withers. Basically a variation on #1; but with the money remaining inside under management rather than being passed through. Similarly fatalistic and similarly culturally unlikely.

3. Take profits from core business, attempt to invent the future before somebody else does, and crushes you. Not necessarily a better strategy than #1 or #2 (it might be; but it is a high risk/high reward type of thing); but a far better cultural fit than just sitting back and stashing the profits and accepting that eventually things change.

Re:Proper motivation (0)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a month and a half ago | (#47816277)

Their motivation, in this area and all of the other scattered stuff, like cars and drone delivery and rocket prizes and stuff is called, "R&D."

They aren't worried about foreseeable payback.

You can bet your ass they will stumble across some neat shit.

All that advertising stuff has given them deep pockets.

Bill Gates buys art and tries to fix hunger and poverty with his billions.

Google is more into implementing theoretical junk to see if there is something there or if there's something nearby.

Bill Gates is using his billions to help the poor. Google is using theirs to find the next big thing. It doesn't take Quantum AI to see the difference.

Re:Proper motivation (1)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about a month and a half ago | (#47816437)

There is no difference.

I don't know what you spend your disposable income on, but I'm certain it's for stupid stuff.

You should, instead, be spending your money on cameras, guitars, and computers.

I like cameras, guitars, and computers.

Re:Proper motivation (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a month and a half ago | (#47817715)

There is no difference.

I don't know what you spend your disposable income on, but I'm certain it's for stupid stuff.

You should, instead, be spending your money on cameras, guitars, and computers.

I like cameras, guitars, and computers.

It matters not what you or I spend our disposable income on. The issue brought up, was about how Bill Gates and Google spend their disposable income.

Re:Proper motivation (1)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about a month and a half ago | (#47817813)

It does matter. That's precisely why I posted it.

You are tasked with providing a compelling argument as to why it doesn't matter.

Re:Proper motivation (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a month and a half ago | (#47818287)

It does matter. That's precisely why I posted it.

You are tasked with providing a compelling argument as to why it doesn't matter.

Maybe if you can articulate how your or my spending habits relate to the topic of the spending habits of Google or Bill Gates, I could formulate an argument -- compelling or otherwise, but until then, there is no argument to make as they are unrelated topics except at the most superficial of levels.

Re:Proper motivation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47818969)

Because the two of you are people, and Bill Gates is a person, and you have yet to describe what is *different* about you. I could guess that it's because Bill Gates has way more money, and then I would have to guess why that matters.

And Google is a company and not a person, but you didn't attack that point, you put them in the same class as Gates.

But I actually don't get what you guys are arguing at all. Do you think one or the other thing to spend money on is morally superior?

Re:Proper motivation (1)

qbast (1265706) | about a month and a half ago | (#47816735)

Are there any fewer poor after Gates' pumped billions into help? Make a fire and man will be warm for rest of a day, set man on fire and he will be warm for rest of his life.

Re:Proper motivation (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a month and a half ago | (#47817689)

Are there any fewer poor after Gates' pumped billions into help? Make a fire and man will be warm for rest of a day, set man on fire and he will be warm for rest of his life.

Whether you feed them for a day or the rest of their life, you are still helping them, are you not?

Re:Proper motivation (1)

qbast (1265706) | about a month and a half ago | (#47818499)

Am I really? If I keep feeding them today, next day and next day (this time with 3 extra kids) then instead of helping them, I just taught them dependence.

Re:Proper motivation (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a month and a half ago | (#47818597)

Am I really? If I keep feeding them today, next day and next day (this time with 3 extra kids) then instead of helping them, I just taught them dependence.

Whether your assistance is in feeding them or in helping them to become self sufficient, it is still assistance. Now, if your motivation is to make them dependent on you, that is a different issue. However, there is no evidence to support that is Bill Gate's intention with his philanthropy.

Unfortunately, Newton's 3rd law says no (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about a month and a half ago | (#47820371)

> Now, if your motivation is to make them dependent on you, that is a different issue. However, there is no evidence to support that is Bill Gate's intention with his philanthropy.

Newton's third law says that for every action, there is an equal reaction. Motivation and intent are not part of the formula. If you do X, Y will happen. It doesn't matter a bit what you're thinking about when you do X. You intentions affect how you FEEL, that's it. Other people are affected by your ACTIONS. If you set up a situation where they are in a dependent role, they'll be practicing dependence. Wishing that weren't true doesn't enter into it at all.

That's unfortunate for U.S. liberals because they have a lot of GREAT intentions. They really, really want to save the planet by driving 35 miles to buy soy and hemp at the organic market. Unfortunately, their actions, driving 35 miles, just burned a gallon and half of gas each way. Their intentions are so right, so pure. It's just that their actions are normally all wrong.

Re:Unfortunately, Newton's 3rd law says no (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a month and a half ago | (#47822063)

Why fault the US liberals? The whole US economy is based on consumerism. Liberal and conservative both are guilty of over-consumption.

not faulting them, just they are affected by it (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about a month and a half ago | (#47823069)

I'm not faulting them, just saying that while everybody screws up in different ways, the liberal tendency toward being idealistic and focusing on motives means their particular downfall is that they tend to want very badly to achieve the impossible, without making much actual progress. As an example, pollution from power plants (and fatal illnesses caused by them) could have been reduced over 90% by switching from coal to nuclear. Liberals refused that option, choosing instead to,wish that the sun shone at night in order to provide solar-electric.

Conservatives, almost by definition, screw up by being so afraid of throwing the baby out with the bathwater that they keep the stinky old bathwater for far too long. Different ways of thinking create different problems, that's all. Probably the ideal situation would be for the liberals to set the goals, then turn it over to the conservatives to implement effective action to move toward those goals.

Tried it. Ensuring his situation doesn't improve (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about a month and a half ago | (#47820231)

I've had dozens of individuals stay with me for a while, either in my spare bedroom or on my couch. A couple of my friends do the same. When someone is "down on their luck", just got out of prison, sobering up, whatever we get a call. My experience and my observation of others is that we can do a lot of good if we say to the person "I see you're down in a hole. I've been there, let me show you the way out." We show them how to get a job, right away, even with a felony record. We show them how to rent a place to stay without having money saved for the deposits , including utility deposits.

On the other hand, if we try to carry them of the hole instead of showing them the way out, it virtually always fails. Feeding them today means that in a few hours they'll be hungry again. It ensures their situation doesn't improve. What improves their situation is to say "come with me and I'll show you how we can earn somemoney today so you cqn buy groceries ". That gives them the skill, the mechanics of how to go earn money whenever you need to, but more importantly it gives them a new pattern "when you're running low on groceries, go do some work to earn some" rather than "when you're low on groceries, call someone and ask if they'll buy you groceries ". These are the facts from our experience.

Re:Tried it. Ensuring his situation doesn't improv (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a month and a half ago | (#47822047)

I am not arguing that teaching them to be self sufficient may not be the better choice, but both methods are still "helping." Sometimes self-sufficiency is beyond the realm give the nature of the person and the circumstances. For instance, providing direct help for to the victims of the Ebola outbreak is more useful than teaching them how to create their own treatment. Even if they had their own ability to create their own treatments, there are opportunity costs. Would developing these treatments in the sense of being self-sufficient outweigh the same effort being put into crop production?

While helping others to become self-sufficient, sometimes those to whom much have been given are called upon to help those without. Conceptually, teaching a man to fish is better than feeding him for a day, but sometimes one's excesses can relieve a lot of pain and suffering until that new skill is mastered.

Re:Proper motivation (1)

Megol (3135005) | about a month and a half ago | (#47818695)

There are fewer sick poor I'd guess. But don't let logic and facts get in the way of your "argument"...

Re:Proper motivation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47819107)

Pleaso don't be so silly, Bill Gates is a human being, google is a corporation; a corporation has a legal obligation to seek profit.

Re:Proper motivation (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a month and a half ago | (#47816815)

All that advertising stuff has given them deep pockets.

Yes, and they are throwing it at all kinds of ideas hoping something pays off big before it dawns on all the marketing folks that "Internet advertising" is practically worthless, and the market collapses. A British study recently estimated that everyone could have ad-free Internet for something like $29 / mo. That would be a bargain, particularly when you realize it would also eliminate all the web poisoning by people trying to game the advertisers.

Re:Proper motivation (1)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about a month and a half ago | (#47816953)

Yeah but you're an admitted crackpot, so ...

Just kidding.

Seriously, though, I totally agree with you. The advertising models for TV and the Internet are broken in their current form.

Two strategies are working:

1.) Viral YouTube video ads are awesome but it's very unusual for one to float to the top.

2.) Embedded ads are beginning to be the norm, where the content consumer is unaware that they are being targeted or, they know, but there isn't anything they can do about it.

Here's a solid prediction, to boot:

Sites already know when we are using plug-ins like Adblocker and some either ask us to exempt their site or refuse to let us in at all. That will continue and render ad blockers useless.

We've already seen that with cookies.

Turn cookies off in your browser and have fun with that bad idea and stuff.

Re:Proper motivation (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a month and a half ago | (#47817041)

Two strategies are working:

...

2.) Embedded ads are beginning to be the norm, where the content consumer is unaware that they are being targeted or, they know, but there isn't anything they can do about it.

I disagree that those are working. Yes, they can target you from cookie data, and that works to show you ads. But what I've notices is I get TONS of "targeted" ads for stuff I just bought. I don't need a hotel room right after I just booked one. I don't need any of this stuff I bought yesterday, or last week. And while I recognize what I did to get certain "targeted" ads, I do nothing based on them, and no one I've ever talked to ever click on them or buy anything based on seeing them. So as far as I can tell they don't really work to improve revenue.

There have actually been studies that have demonstrated that, but for some reason the marketers still spending money on them haven't been clued into it yet. Yet.

Re:Proper motivation (1)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about a month and a half ago | (#47817413)

Of course, the advertisers are not the true perpetrators ... that would be the businesses.

Businesses know that product exposure to many eyeballs has a probability of generating income.

Super Bowl ads prove that it doesn't always work.

Targeted ads, in theory, work because you are probably going to be more interested in buying some more of the stuff you bought recently, or you are probably going to be interested in purchasing something related.

In all probability, your purchasing record would not make you a valid candidate for a random ad for pink socks.

A killer idea is to embed targeted ads or to produce interesting content that IS targeted advertisement.

Re:Proper motivation (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a month and a half ago | (#47820583)

Here's a solid prediction, to boot:

Sites already know when we are using plug-ins like Adblocker and some either ask us to exempt their site or refuse to let us in at all. That will continue and render ad blockers useless.

We've already seen that with cookies.

Turn cookies off in your browser and have fun with that bad idea and stuff.

that can be gamed by loading the scripts but not executing them there are similar schemes for cookies.

Re:Proper motivation (2)

swillden (191260) | about a month and a half ago | (#47817711)

Yes, and they are throwing it at all kinds of ideas hoping something pays off big before it dawns on all the marketing folks that "Internet advertising" is practically worthless, and the market collapses.

Actually, the reason Google got so big was precisely because they were (and are) able prove to marketing folks that they were getting a lot of value from their Internet advertising. A big part of what makes Google so popular among advertisers is the tools that allow them to quantify with a fair degree of precision how many of the clicks they pay for translate into sales and of what amount. In the advertising space this was Google's big innovation: a way to overcome the problem implied by the marketing saw "I know that half of what I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half". With Google's ads, advertisers (at least those selling online) can measure exactly how much return they're getting on their advertising investment, and use that to manage their online ad strategy. So... if it didn't have good ROI, it would already be dead.

(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but the stuff I work on has no direct relation to ads. My comments here are actually derived mostly from comments by businesspeople I know who operate online stores and use Google's ad services -- and love them.)

Re:Proper motivation (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47817283)

used to be ITT, Bell Labs, IBM and other such "mom and pop shops" did this massive investment in R glad to see it's being done now somewhere.

Re:Proper motivation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47817403)

R = RandD, but /. ate the ampersand....

High temp superconductivity (1)

Mathinker (909784) | about a month and a half ago | (#47822907)

People have already forgotten that the high-temperature superconductors were discovered, not by the power industry, but by IBM.

Re:Proper motivation (2)

gweihir (88907) | about a month and a half ago | (#47816463)

Highly unlikely. This is a hard, and possibly unsolvable problem. One small team within Google is not going to do better than 25 years of so-far failed Quantum Computing research.

Re:Proper motivation (2)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about a month and a half ago | (#47818167)

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants"

-Isaac Newton

Re:Proper motivation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47819619)

And whose shoulders are the giants standing on? .. Oh right, Giants all the way down..

Re:Proper motivation (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a month and a half ago | (#47820047)

BS is BS, no matter what shoulders you stand on. It does require some domain knowledge recognizing that though, and a lot of people fall for the latest hype every few years, again and again. Still hype and still BS. We will neither have practical Quantum Computing, nor working AI that deserves the name, nor practical, affordable flying cars in the next 30 years. All of these could well turn out to be impossible in this universe.

Re:Proper motivation (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about a month and a half ago | (#47830473)

If everyone had that attitude, we would still be huddled around fires cooking animals that we killed with spears.

Re:Proper motivation (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a month and a half ago | (#47817235)

It will be nice to see if Google's interests and motivations will yield interesting, more practical results, in this area.

Better advertising, I guess.

Target uses metrics and analytics to guess when a family has a baby on the way, but I'm guessing using this may allow Google to go beyond simple pattern recognition into more complex fields.

OK, you looked at websites A, B, D and F, well, you're likely trying to get into college, but G, and I imply you need help on your essay. Here are ads for essay farms!

After all, we complain targeted ads are bad, so Google's trying to make them better. Oh, you're loking at Z today, I guess I shouldn't show you those support group ads because you have company over.

Laugh (2)

koan (80826) | about a month and a half ago | (#47815699)

Now we are proper fucked.

Translation... (1)

sarkeizen (106737) | about a month and a half ago | (#47815759)

The D-Wave unit really doesn't help them. Perhaps a dedicated QUBO solver isn't sufficient for their needs or the D-Wave doesn't look like it will scale (we already know that it can be outperformed by equipment much less expensive than itself but investing might still be worthwhile if the technology looks like it will scale over time).

Re:Translation... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47816059)

They are going ahead and doubling the qubits in their D-Wave to 1024, but as expected, it doesn't look like D-Wave matches the hype. D-Wave will supposedly have 2048 qubits ready by next year. These iterations could easily trounce classical computing if a) people can program the thing and b) the narrow class of problems it solves is actually important.

Re:Translation... (1)

sarkeizen (106737) | about a month and a half ago | (#47816247)

I'd quibble with "easily trounce" since we don't really know how this technology scale. Does doubling the D-Wave Qbits double performance? As it stands we know from other benchmarks that reasonably large single machine can operate equivalently to D-Wave. That hardware costs a few orders of magnitude less then D-Wave so unless D-Wave looks like it SCALES - i.e. performance goes up, costs go down. Then it's not going to be useful to anyone except in side effects like power efficiency. Also remember this is a single purpose solver - it's not a general computer. So at best it can be a kind of enormously expensive hardware accelerator. I'd also quibble a bit with "class of problems it solves". Troyer, et al seems to say that there appears no general performance advantage. D-Wave's response to this is "Well there are specific cases where it was better". Which is expected in any non-deterministic algorithm. A random number generator will eventually guess the right answer on the first try. So now D-Wave would have to show that there is some generalized subclass of problems that it can solve efficiently. I don't envy D-Wave but IMHO they knew (or should have known) the limitations of their ideas when they started out.

Re:Translation... (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a month and a half ago | (#47816495)

It is exceedingly unlikely for D-Wave to scale. Normal interconnect is the limiting factor in current digital computers. Keeping entanglement scales far, far worse than simple electric connections. While somebody may eventually build a true Quantum Computer, (the D-Wave isn't one), it is quite possible that it will never scale to any useful size.

Re:Translation... (1)

sarkeizen (106737) | about a month and a half ago | (#47817151)

Agreed. IIRC it's unclear if very much entanglement is going on in the D-Wave Two. Which is possibly why they are able to add Qbits at the rate they have been and also why their performance is muddy at best.

Re:Translation... (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a month and a half ago | (#47820067)

The D-Wave is not fully entangled (that is why it is a quantum annealer, not a quantum computer), which makes its scaling pretty meaningless, as it does not actually lead to a scaling in the quantum computing performance. That means it will never be faster than conventional computers.

Re:Translation... (1)

sarkeizen (106737) | about a month and a half ago | (#47821137)

The way you phrased your post makes it sound like you're saying "more entanglement would make it a quantum computer". Which isn't correct the difference between a Quantum Computer (or gate-model QC device if you prefer) and what D-Wave has built is that it's based around solving a specific Hamiltonian which happens to map to NP-Hard problem of some interest. You could, in theory solve decoherence in D-Wave's device through something not unlike quantum error correction. However even with that it still wouldn't be a general computer. Also if we could solve that problem easily we would probably be able to build true quantum computers.

Re:Translation... (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a month and a half ago | (#47821849)

I actually say that full entanglement would make it a QC. "More entanglement" may just make it more efficiently for what it can do. I do not even see that happening, and currently it is not match for a conventional computer of equal cost.

Re:Translation... (1)

sarkeizen (106737) | about a month and a half ago | (#47822121)

What do you mean by "full entanglement"?

Re:Translation... (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a month and a half ago | (#47830797)

Really? Look up how QC works some time...

Re:Translation... (1)

sarkeizen (106737) | about a month and a half ago | (#47837975)

I know a thing or two about quantum information theory. However that's the first time I've heard "full entanglement" used to describe some entangled state. More frequently you talk about negativity or cluster states. That of course comes from knowing something about the topic and you...well...don't. :)

i'm starting to worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47815879)

several billion neurons networked together don't have nearly as much potential as several billion quantum phones networked together (or for that matter, ordinary smartphones)

MINdUS 2, TROLL) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47815893)

parties). At THE subscribers. Please are hAving trouble are a few good

Rachael's Mutt Not Included (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47816047)

http://files.persona.cc/rantmedia/afternow/afternow-episode06.mp3

Yawn. (0)

msobkow (48369) | about a month and a half ago | (#47816185)

Let me know when we have "quantum" processors that actually out-perform "traditional" CPUs on the tasks that quantum processing is supposed to be good at (e.g. graph optimization.) Until then, it's all marketting smoke and mirrors and not worth shit.

Re:Yawn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47816291)

Indeed. Betcha d-wave is gonna fold quietly within the next decade (i.e. when their wealthy backers in industry and military [Other People's Money] have been sufficiently embarrassed) after it finally becomes impossible to obscure the spectacularly unspectacular performance / scaling characteristics ;-)

Re:Yawn. (1)

gweihir (88907) | about a month and a half ago | (#47816523)

In the meantime, they seem to be doing good business. There is a sucker born every minute...

Re: Yawn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47817819)

5 every second

Re:Yawn. (1)

resfilter (960880) | about a month and a half ago | (#47816479)

even a failed attempt is worth quite a bit, and worth watching; as far as technological research goes, we usually tend to fuck it up a few dozen times before we get it just right.

Re:Yawn. (1)

HiThere (15173) | about a month and a half ago | (#47819877)

Well there's really two different problems. One is the hardware, the other is the algorithms. Currently, if we had quantum processors there's only a few things it could do better than conventional hardware. Prime number factorization is the leading light in that, This doesn't describe much of what computers currently do, so currently a real quantum processor wouldn't be really useful except for things like "Quantu Key Exchange", code breaking, etc. But there *ought* to be a large number of things it could do, if we could only figure out how.

Because of this, only certain groups are really interested in developing quantum processors. (Expected cooling requirements makes things worse.) But if a few more algorithms could be developed it's likely that EVERY datacenter would want to have at least one to use as a server. Maybe.

God, I love living in the future... (1)

QilessQi (2044624) | about a month and a half ago | (#47816191)

That summary reads like something out of Star Trek. Superconducting qubit arrays! Imagine a positronic network of those. ;-)

Re:God, I love living in the future... (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a month and a half ago | (#47816541)

Yeah, until it sends a terminator back in time to kill a certain "John Connor"!

I prefer to call it, Transcendence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47819605)

Get out of there now!

Google Quantum Inference computing processor (1)

MindlessGenius (1263520) | about a month and a half ago | (#47825291)

Oh, Hell Yea! However, it will take time for the average computer user unable to handle current system with watercooling needs... My guess is that anything current does need super cooling as in liquid Nitro cold... So the likely scenario of a broadly deployable technology is probably a very long time away... for those wondering why? Read this: http://www.academia.edu/240382... [academia.edu]
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?