Study Doubts Quantum Computer Speed 105
Alain Williams writes "The BBC reports that a new academic study has raised doubts about the performance of a commercial quantum computer in certain circumstances. In some tests devised by a team of researchers, the commercial quantum computer has performed no faster than a standard desktop machine. 'The study has been submitted to a journal, but has not yet completed the peer review process to verify the findings. And D-Wave told BBC News the tests set by the scientists were not the kinds of problems where quantum computers offered any advantage over classical types.'"
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Worthless BBC article (Score:4, Informative)
Since I haven't read the actual paper, I'll give the researchers the benefit of the doubt. But the BBC reporting is terrible. What I got from the story is that a study has demonstrated that this Quantum computer isn't better at everything. Well, duh! Everyone who has even very casually followed Quantum computing knows that they are a new class of computing which can solve a limited set of problems very quickly. I'm really not much wiser after reading this story.
What I got from it is that quantum computing researchers devised some tests for it and that it performed about as well as a desktop computer. I would *imagine* that quantum computing researchers at NASA and Google wouldn't just throw an unsuitable set of tests at it. I *imagine* that they know as much about the D-Wave computer as anyone outside D-Wave know about it and devised tests to, you know, *test* it.
I could be wrong, maybe Google and NASA quantum computing researchers know shit about quantum computing and threw totally unsuitable tests at it.
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Informative)
It also hasn't been established that the D-Wave is at all a quantum computer. They've refused to say how it works in that regard, and there has been no proof that any quantum entanglements even take place inside the box.
D-Wave machine Quantum computer (Score:4, Informative)
Re:this story never seems to be correct. (Score:5, Informative)
D-Wave has yet to demonstrate, in the open literature, that their quantum annealing is faster than classical computing annealing methods using considerably cheaper hardware. Early "look how fast we are" comparisons involved comparing against really terrible algorithms on classical hardware --- independent researchers were able to beat D-Wave when not using intentionally crippled approaches.
Re:Worthless BBC article (Score:2, Informative)
I'll agree that
but it's not 'worthless'...you have to hack through it b/c they aim for the dumbest, most non-tech reader they can imagine...then dumb it down more...but the info is there
you don't need to just "give the researchers the benefit of the doubt"...that's foolish
"Quantum" computing is hype & the research saying it exists is flawed.
This is big news for some people. For me, I split time between the biz world & academia so this matters to me for many reasons.
One example: Research standards vs Hype. Standards for research are abyssmal, taken as a whole across the disciplines. So many times we see coorelation=causation falacies in news about 'new scientific research' like this BBC article.
Quantum Computing is part of that hype & TFA explains some research that confirms that statement!
There are obviously two ways to look at this (Score:5, Informative)
The Google Quantum AI lab puts this news into perspective [google.com] and I put my positive spin on it here [wavewatching.net].
Having talked with one of the co-authors of the paper, he actually came away impressed at how far D-Wave has come in ten years. Although not yet far enough that I'd win my bet with him, that the D-Wave two could beat classical computing across the board.
So in short, yes, the BBC's reporting on quantum computing is atrocious. Not the first time either. [wavewatching.net]