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.'"
Re:Of course... (Score:5, Interesting)
DWave don't have to "enlighten us": the statistical tests that distinguish quantum and classical annealing are in the public domain and they've been open about which of those tests they think the machine should pass. The trouble is that it's hard to run those tests cleanly, which is what the study is about:
Here we show how to define and measure quantum speedup in various scenarios, and how to avoid pitfalls that might mask or fake quantum speedup.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Interesting)
you shitting me?
"prototype" engines won f1 all the fucking time when f1 was still cool as fuck and the cars were pretty much all prototypes.
d-wave on the other hand is a company taking millions for their product - which is a black box they say is good at doing something but refuse to tell why or how - and loads of government money is pouring into it.
try calling mb or whoever is actually building f1 engines still and try to buy their current race engine.
now try calling d-wave and try to buy whatever it is that they try to hock you.. it's for sale and it is a production machine.
Re: But it's QUANTUM! (Score:5, Interesting)
Reviewers often are working in similar spaces too. I had a paper that failed review the first couple times because the reviewer wanted more data on a particular area of the project. It didn't affect the main idea of the paper or in any way directly contribute to our argument. The reviewer needed some charts generated because he was working on a similar project and it would help for him to have some other paper that he could reference to get started/justify his paper. So not only low paid work sometimes low paid work for someone who you didn't even know was your boss :)