Google To Build Quantum Information Processors 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.
They learned it wasn't a true quantum processor... (Score:1)
...and now are developing their own version based on their 'learnings'.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, they are stupid. Not a surprise, but the cost is petty cash for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good troll. I was really, really tempted to give you a "Funny" mod. Here's some kudos instead.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
It will be nice to see if Google's interests and motivations will yield interesting, more practical results, in this area.
Re:Proper motivation (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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 Sili
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
> 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
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 shon
Tried it. Ensuring his situation doesn't improve (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 se
Re: (Score:2)
There are fewer sick poor I'd guess. But don't let logic and facts get in the way of your "argument"...
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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:
Sit
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 val
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 "
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
High temp superconductivity (Score:1)
People have already forgotten that the high-temperature superconductors were discovered, not by the power industry, but by IBM.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants"
-Isaac Newton
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
If everyone had that attitude, we would still be huddled around fires cooking animals that we killed with spears.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Laugh (Score:2)
Now we are proper fucked.
Translation... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Look up how QC works some time...
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn. (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
In the meantime, they seem to be doing good business. There is a sucker born every minute...
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 co
God, I love living in the future... (Score:2)
That summary reads like something out of Star Trek. Superconducting qubit arrays! Imagine a positronic network of those. ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Check intel new eight core processor (Score:1)
Google Quantum Inference computing processor (Score:1)