Giant Leap for Mankind...or World's Largest Ruse?

a reply to: Allaroundyou

He's actually the Renaissance Man of ATS. Just read his postings-think Hemingway.

a reply to: Mahogany

Think about your questions, in the context of pure science. There are a whole variety of ways Google could benchmark and prove out their hardware's capability without needing NASA's data to do it. Now ask yourself; why doesn't Google just do this themselves? Why do they need NASA?

Could it be because NASA has the data (and the software)...and Google wants it?

I have no objection whatsoever to our country benefiting from cutting edge technology. However, I do have an objection to Google benefiting at at all of our expense. There's a difference.

Don't forget, this is about Google, not about NASA.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


The equipment to cool the quantum computer (QC) down itself has to be isolated and shielded. It takes a whole room to try to isolate the QC from any stray interference that would destroy your delicate quantum state.

The "throw it on the cloud" sounds like a good idea until you get to running algorithms.

I posted the experience from some researchers doing that with IBM on one of my threads. They said access through internet was too slow. They ended up moving on-site. They also said they had to set everything up themselves (I think they were from Lawrence Livermore Labs, so they knew what they were doing!). They ran hundred of thousands data trials to check statistically how error prone QC is. The result was "it was doing quantum computing but is error prone" (at some percentage).

Let's see if NASA has the same problem. Probably why there is a pre-nup!

Other cloud-based QC out there:

Rigetti Computing (San Fran area) (Forbes.com) - Can You Make A Quantum Computer Live Up To The Hype? Then Rigetti Computing Has $1 Million For You.

IBM (tomshardware.com) - IBM Proves Quantum Computers Can Be Faster Than Classical Ones.

Microsoft and Berkley Lab both have something in the works.

I think Google is playing catch up to the other guys.

QC is just getting started. Lots of research is being done. MIT, LLNL, Sydney Uni, Uni of Indiana, Texas A&M, Berkley, Uni of Chicago, are just the ones off the top of my head I know that are well ahead of the game. I read somewhere that someplace in Europe is building a 100-qubit QC.

Australia seems like the hot bed as there is a story like every month about QC this, QC that.

I would not say "mankind breakthrough" but simple progress. Ruse or sly marketing campaign? Is there a difference?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

In one way, the effect you mention might not be as harmful to us as a country as you might think.

When I was working as an intern for UAH/NASA on the EUSO project, I was still stuck in my mindset of making silk purses out of sow's ears and turning the warts into rhinestones. Then a top-level NASA physicist I knew explained something to me: "This is NASA. We spend money. That's what we do."

I have to admit, they were really good at it!

TheRedneck

That PC aint smart until it beats Deep Blue at some Chess... everyone knows that.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Oh, I agree; we could find worse things to spend money on. I just found it interesting the level of effort put on obscuring the real motivations here and thought it might be fun to translate some of the techno-babble (read: marketing) and maybe reel it back into reality.

Plus, whenever I see Google doing something I am immediately suspicious of ulterior motivations. Isn't everyone?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Suspicious of Google?

Yes.

Duh.

The access to data worries me more than the marketing ploy to suck money from NASA. The surest way to lose control of data is to place it in someone else's control. I'm actually amazed NASA would even agree to this, since they're normally very particular about their data... as they should be.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

I agree.

Especially the part about Google catching up. But then, it's Google, right? They rarely do anything without trying to kill about 10 birds with the same stone, and those other (9) birds are usually where no one is looking!

Some people say "Win-Win"

Google (or should I say Alphabet) says "Win^10", or "Win x win x win x win....x win"

ETA - I also meant to comment on this:

...They ran hundred of thousands data trials to check statistically how error prone QC is. The result was "it was doing quantum computing but is error prone" (at some percentage).

Yep, it's that little caveat about not really being a "1" or a "0" thing, but rather somewhere in between.

a reply to: TheRedneck

LOL!

Absolutely!

It's about the data. Why else would Google be doing this? (hence my response to Mahogany earlier too).

They want access to the data.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Great response (and sorry for getting backed up in replying)!

To be honest, I never got the whole idea of computing based on quantum fluctuations. There is an advantage in using quantum entanglement to speed internal computations, since quantum entanglement allows information to travel faster than the speed of light. The costs of maintaining the quantum entanglement appear at this stage to be far greater than the advantages received, though. And then, in order to be useful, any information output would still have to be translated into an energy form that we can interact with. I can't tell which way an electron too small for me to even hope to see is spinning, and I don't think I am alone.

Bingo! Likely of debatable value until that time.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
That PC aint smart until it beats Deep Blue at some Chess... everyone knows that.

Deep Blue ?
How bout Deeper Blue ?
How bout Watson and Jeopardy ?
You behind the times...

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

This is nothing new.

If you have followed Dwave like I have, this is exactly the same path they have taken.

Thing is Dwave's machine is not a pure quantum computer, but Google, Nasa, the NSA, and Lockheed Martin have all partnered with them to help develop it. They also have it set up on the cloud now.

These machines are extremely difficult to program. They need to partner with these kind of agency's because they are some of the few with enough brain power to even begin to understand how to use the machines. There is no C++ or Java programming language equivalent for these machines. 72 cubits is nothing either. When they get to 5000+ that is when you should start to worry, because then they become more powerful than existing machines - and it will happen fast.

Your worry is a little overblown as of now. We are at the equivalent of the 1950's or 60's when it comes to quantum computers. At this point they are little more than science experiments. Once they do become useful however their impact will be dramatic.

Regardless of who develops the quantum computer that wins out - how it will be used by the government is obvious.
Just like any tech it has the power to do good and bad. But also like any tech - you can't stop progress, at best all you can do is slow it down.

a reply to: proximo

Good post!

Just flagging it up now, because when alphabet gets involved it's not long before we should start worrying for real.

The sky(net) isn't falling yet, but it's worth keeping an eye on abc-xyz (if you catch my meaning).

a reply to: TheRedneck

The way I understand it Quantum computers are only better than classical computing for some problems.

Problems with thousands of variables and finding the best answer is one type they are very good at solving. There are many many of these types of problems that there is no good way to solve computationally currently.

For instance if fedex needs to deliver 50,000 packages - what is the most efficient route for every truck to take to make the deliveries. This is also why they are good at decrypting things - they can simply do brute force method of decryption much faster.

Basically the way I understand it is a quantum computer looks at many many possible solutions at the same time, whereas a classical computer has to evaluate them effectively one at a time. Basically the greater number of qubits the more possible variables it can compare at the same time.

Well I guess if you can't beat'em join'em. If you haven't yet I think it is a good time to invest in google stock.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: proximo

Good post!

Just flagging it up now, because when alphabet gets involved it's not long before we should start worrying for real.

The sky(net) isn't falling yet, but it's worth keeping an eye on abc-xyz (if you catch my meaning).

Well they have been involved in it heavily for over 5 years. Yes I am sure they see it as a great business opportunity for them - it is.

But my point is whoever builds these - they are going to get built, and they all will use them in basically the same way. So I don't think it's any more fair to say Google is evil than anyone else. They are just trying to fill a market need.

I personally am a lot more worried about the Chinese developing the tech first than any American company.

a reply to: Gothmog

Ol blue?


What are we talking about again?

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: Gothmog

Ol blue?

What are we talking about again?

That would be the PC Jr.
Or me...
Hard to tell
IBM is at the forefront of Quantum Computing and AI

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Call me stupid but isn't the Cloud just 'file sharing on the net?' if that is so, wouldn't putting the Cloud whatever that is, as an intermediary to move the data from the new chip to NASA pointless? In other words, wouldn't it be far far slower than the real time transfer of the data from the chip to the hard-drive, so rendering the chip useless because the net can't move the data as fast as the chip can out put it?

a reply to: UKTruth

And you'll complain and whine. While after you're dead this technology will benefit billions one day. But hey, you complain over some money that people would have spent on phones, booze, and expensive food.

This is why humans can't have nice things. Greed conquers all.