So negative because there's still a non-zero probability that its not going to work at all, ever. That there's something about quantum computing we've figured out wrong, and no benefit is possible.
They're also negative because no one has actually proved that the D-Wave is, in fact, doing any actual quantum computing. That's been the issue all along with D-Wave: no one can prove that it's really doing anything with those qbits.
They're just getting started, this field is very new, very difficult, and there are a lot of very smart people trying to answer the what/how/why/where/when of "quantum" computers.
The hardware outperforms off-the-shelf solvers by a large margin
"In an early test we dialed up random instances and pitted the machine against popular of-the-shelf solvers -- Tabu Search, Akmaxsat and CPLEX. At 509 qubits, the machine is about 35,500 times (!) faster than the best of these solvers. (You may have heard about a 3,600-fold speedup earlier, but that was on an older chip with only 439 qubits." [1]
Yeah, and I've never seen anyone outside D-Wave show these types of speedups. Last article I read, in fact, was struggling really hard to even show that D-Wave was the same speed as traditional algos.
My point is that even if we can't prove the D-Wave Two is faster at any problem than a traditional computer that the massive amount of knowledge gained about quantum computers will outweigh the costs.
It's far too early to worry about a non-zero probability of it not working, just like fusion power. All it takes is one breakthrough and a revolution in computing will begin. Doing research on quantum computers is a low-risk and high-reward situation. None of these companies are betting everything on quantum computers.
Comments
So negative because there's still a non-zero probability that its not going to work at all, ever. That there's something about quantum computing we've figured out wrong, and no benefit is possible.
They're also negative because no one has actually proved that the D-Wave is, in fact, doing any actual quantum computing. That's been the issue all along with D-Wave: no one can prove that it's really doing anything with those qbits.
It depends on your definition of quantum computing, the D-Wave does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_annealing and has been faster in some applications.
https://plus.google.com/+QuantumAILab/posts
They're just getting started, this field is very new, very difficult, and there are a lot of very smart people trying to answer the what/how/why/where/when of "quantum" computers.
The hardware outperforms off-the-shelf solvers by a large margin
"In an early test we dialed up random instances and pitted the machine against popular of-the-shelf solvers -- Tabu Search, Akmaxsat and CPLEX. At 509 qubits, the machine is about 35,500 times (!) faster than the best of these solvers. (You may have heard about a 3,600-fold speedup earlier, but that was on an older chip with only 439 qubits." [1]
[1] https://plus.google.com/+QuantumAILab/posts/DymNo8DzAYi
But it doesn't outperform classical algorithms specifically written to solve the types of problems that the D-Wave machine accepts.
Yeah, and I've never seen anyone outside D-Wave show these types of speedups. Last article I read, in fact, was struggling really hard to even show that D-Wave was the same speed as traditional algos.
Just like early digital computers couldn't out-perform specialized mechanical analog computers.
My point is that even if we can't prove the D-Wave Two is faster at any problem than a traditional computer that the massive amount of knowledge gained about quantum computers will outweigh the costs.
It's far too early to worry about a non-zero probability of it not working, just like fusion power. All it takes is one breakthrough and a revolution in computing will begin. Doing research on quantum computers is a low-risk and high-reward situation. None of these companies are betting everything on quantum computers.
Certainly, but maybe it's not a business yet?