News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Quantum Computing's Hard, Cold Reality Check by kromem on Saturday December 23, 2023 @03:31PM (#38747905)
General purpose QC isn't going to happen all that soon, and may always be faced with scaling issues.

But we will see QC in a very specific application before the decade is out.

It's kind of a perfect marriage between ML and QC. If you want stochastic outputs and aren't going to know what's going on at each step in the network anyways, the issues of error correction around measurement aren't nearly as crippling as they are for general purpose QC.

While initially the work will be converting from classical to optoelectronic hardware for matching current operations, such as MIT's work this year, once we've seen greater availability of optoelectronic hardware I suspect we'll see algorithms for ML developed that would only work in photonic networks and fully exploit the quantum properties therein.

Re:Quantum Computing's Hard, Cold Reality Check by B1FF_PSUVM on Saturday December 23, 2023 @04:57PM (#38748657)
> If you want stochastic outputs and aren't going to know what's going on at each step in the network anyways

You have a way with words, I'm already more at ease with the perspective of a schizophrenic AGI ...

Re:Quantum Computing's Hard, Cold Reality Check by kromem on Saturday December 23, 2023 @05:05PM (#38748734)
It's not really any different from the current state of models, it's just that moving the same constraints to a different hardware foundation opens up significant performance gains.
Re:Quantum Computing's Hard, Cold Reality Check by eigenket on Saturday December 23, 2023 @06:32PM (#38749361)
I am a researcher in quantum information and this seems highly unlikely to me.

Quantum computers, as far as I can tell, get significant improvements over classical computers only for quite specific highly mathematically structured problems like the discrete log problem or simulating other quantum systems.

I don't think it's likely that there will be substantial "quantum adantage" in the machine learning/ai area.

Re:Quantum Computing's Hard, Cold Reality Check by itsacomment on Saturday December 23, 2023 @07:14PM (#38749649)
Don't greyed out comments mean someone is downvoting you? What's going on in this thread, this is the second comment of yours that's factually far better than the preceding one but greyed out.

I agree with you, quantum ai has only ever been people shouting "quantum" at black box neural nets, as if that had ever produced a viable algorithm yet...

Re:Quantum Computing's Hard, Cold Reality Check by sporadicallyjoe on Saturday December 23, 2023 @07:43PM (#38749883)
That's correct. Comments become grey when they receive multiple downvotes.
Re:Quantum Computing's Hard, Cold Reality Check by programjames on Saturday December 23, 2023 @11:18PM (#38751071)
I'm not a researcher here, but I'm pretty sure Bayesian neural networks are realizable with quantum computers, which is a substantial "quantum advantage".
Re:Quantum Computing's Hard, Cold Reality Check by programjames on Saturday December 23, 2023 @11:17PM (#38751060)
"While initially the work will be converting from classical to optoelectronic hardware for matching current operations, such as MIT's work this year,"

I'm pretty sure you're talking about mean Dirk Englund's photonic matrix multiplication. Also, you should do better at explaining what you mean, because if I wasn't already very familiar with this I would have no clue what you're talking about.

Re:Quantum Computing's Hard, Cold Reality Check by kromem on Sunday December 24, 2023 @12:43AM (#38751432)
No, that was 2022.

I'm talking about this one: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3603269.3604821

Re:Quantum Computing's Hard, Cold Reality Check by programjames on Monday December 25, 2023 @12:30AM (#38760097)
Look at the author list... Dirk Englund.

What do you mean by "no"? Do you mean, not that paper (that neither of us linked because there are probably several on matrix multiplication) but instead this other one that also has optics and ml and Dirk? I'm seeing a pattern of you understanding what you write, but it being impossible to decipher on my end.

Re:Quantum Computing's Hard, Cold Reality Check by kromem on Thursday December 28, 2023 @04:04PM (#38798591)
You said "I'm pretty sure you mean Dirk Englund's photonic matrix multiplication."

No, I don't mean his photonic matrix multiplication from 2022.

The issue seems more to be with your over specificity leading to ambiguity than anything else here.