• NASA buys into Quantum Computer, Google using it for machine learning and artificial intelligence.
    36 replies, posted
[QUOTE]A $15m computer that uses "quantum physics" effects to boost its speed is to be installed at a Nasa facility. It will be shared by Google, Nasa, and other scientists, providing access to a machine said to be up to 3,600 times faster than conventional computers. Unlike standard machines, the D-Wave Two processor appears to make use of an effect called quantum tunnelling. This allows it to reach solutions to certain types of mathematical problems in fractions of a second. Effectively, it can try all possible solutions at the same time and then select the best. Google wants to use the facility at Nasa's Ames Research Center in California to find out how quantum computing might advance techniques of machine learning and artificial intelligence, including voice recognition.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22554494"]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22554494[/URL] [editline]16th May 2013[/editline] sounds like a step in the right direction to me
Surprised IBM hasn't thrown their hat into the ring.
They'll still be working on their own I expect.
[QUOTE=Aide;40666124]Surprised IBM hasn't thrown their hat into the ring.[/QUOTE] They're doing their own research on Quantum computers
i never understand any of this shit but always fascinates me
From another article: [QUOTE]McGeoch compared a 439-qubit version of D-Wave to a commercial product from IBM designed to solve the same sorts of problems. The IBM product is designed to deliver a confident answer to a given problem after 30 minutes. McGeoch found that D-Wave did just as well at finding the right answers, but in a half-second run time. That’s 3,600 times faster. “It was really amazing,” she says.[/QUOTE] [url]http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/05/quantum-computer-passes-speed-test.html[/url]
So is this an actual quantum computer, or are they not quite there yet? I don't really understand these articles completely, but I still find them interesting.
[QUOTE=st_nick5;40666252]So is this an actual quantum computer, or are they not quite there yet? I don't really understand these articles completely, but I still find them interesting.[/QUOTE]Afaik quantum computers currently are only good at solving very specific mathematical problems; they'd probably be really shit at running Crysis.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;40666462]Afaik quantum computers currently are only good at solving very specific mathematical problems; they'd probably be really shit at running Crysis.[/QUOTE] Matter of time.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;40666462]Afaik quantum computers currently are only good at solving very specific mathematical problems; they'd probably be really shit at running Crysis.[/QUOTE] Well yeah, have you ever tried running it with a regular computer?
[QUOTE=st_nick5;40666252]So is this an actual quantum computer, or are they not quite there yet? I don't really understand these articles completely, but I still find them interesting.[/QUOTE] Because right now they're still in development and are only programmed to handle numbers.
[QUOTE=ItsMozy;40666831]Matter of time.[/QUOTE] Not really, to my understanding, quantum and conventional computers have different "skills" per say. It might be that conventional computers are better in certain fields than quantum computers, and vice versa
[QUOTE=ItsMozy;40666831]Matter of time.[/QUOTE] Quantum computers don't work like that, not yet at least. Currently they are most useful for massive number crunching and solving problems quickly, I wouldn't doubt quantum computing to stay on a R&D level for another 50 years, by which time Crysis would look like an atari game and we'd all be playing in hologram environments and shit. [B]EDIT: [/B]Think of how the Computers we use everyday came into being. Once tape machines were developed into computers, they were really only useful for solving the problem they were made for, and not much else. Now later they developed ways to program for these simple computers to perform multiple tasks and work more efficiently. It eventually built up to almost every single electronic we see. The thing with quantum computing is that it is almost completely unknown territory, normal computers are just mechanical machines, whereas quantum mechanics works on an atomic level. The difference in speed is one thing to note, but with that comes a whole new complexity to working with such immense viable performance. I'm not being pessimistic, I'm seriously glad these guys are pooling their resources to research this, and it will certainly go a long way. It's just if you expect a personal quantum computer in the next 50 years, one that's compatible of emulating x32/x64 OSs no less, you're going to be dissapointed to find out that quantum computing is going to take a long while to get off the ground.
Don't worry, you guys'll have your AI waifus soon enough.
[QUOTE=Ericson666;40667031]Not really, to my understanding, quantum and conventional computers have different "skills" per say. It might be that conventional computers are better in certain fields than quantum computers, and vice versa[/QUOTE] All it requires is either figuring out a way to change the output, or changing how the inputs are handled.
I wouldn't be surprised with conventional computers using elements of this though.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;40666462]Afaik quantum computers currently are only good at solving very specific mathematical problems; they'd probably be really shit at running Crysis.[/QUOTE] a quantum computer is slow as shit compared to a classical computer except when running quantum algorithms. so the challenge is creating new quantum algorithms that can work more efficiently than classical algorithms. i give it 10 years before the first commercially available fully quantum computer. 50 years is ridiculous, and i have no idea why someone would think you have to wait that long before the technology is viable. [editline]16th May 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=tarkata14;40667034]Quantum computers don't work like that, not yet at least. Currently they are most useful for massive number crunching and solving problems quickly, I wouldn't doubt quantum computing to stay on a R&D level for another 50 years, by which time Crysis would look like an atari game and we'd all be playing in hologram environments and shit. [B]EDIT: [/B]Think of how the Computers we use everyday came into being. Once tape machines were developed into computers, they were really only useful for solving the problem they were made for, and not much else. Now later they developed ways to program for these simple computers to perform multiple tasks and work more efficiently. It eventually built up to almost every single electronic we see. The thing with quantum computing is that it is almost completely unknown territory, normal computers are just mechanical machines, whereas quantum mechanics works on an atomic level. The difference in speed is one thing to note, but with that comes a whole new complexity to working with such immense viable performance. I'm not being pessimistic, I'm seriously glad these guys are pooling their resources to research this, and it will certainly go a long way. It's just if you expect a personal quantum computer in the next 50 years, one that's compatible of emulating x32/x64 OSs no less, you're going to be dissapointed to find out that quantum computing is going to take a long while to get off the ground.[/QUOTE] current computers aren't "mechanical".
I've seen I,robot! I DON'T LIKE THIS!
[URL=http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400]Reality bursts the hype bubble again![/URL] [QUOTE]But of course, D-Wave’s claims—and the claims being made on its behalf by the Hype-Industrial Complex—are far more aggressive than that. And so we come to the part of this post that has not been pre-approved by the International D-Wave Hype Repeaters Association. Namely, the same USC paper that reported the quantum annealing behavior of the D-Wave One, also [B]showed no speed advantage whatsoever for quantum annealing over classical simulated annealing[/B]. In more detail, Matthias Troyer’s group spent a few months carefully studying the D-Wave problem—after which, [B]they were able to write optimized simulated annealing code that solves the D-Wave problem on a normal, off-the-shelf classical computer, about 15 times faster than the D-Wave machine itself solves the D-Wave problem![/B][/QUOTE] Emphasis mine.
I'm looking forward to maybe having another piece of hardware inside of the standard PC, instead of just an ALU and a FPU, the computers of tomorrow will also have a QBU - Quantum Bit Unit. Maybe it'll be part of the CPU itself, maybe it will be an expansion card that you slot into your PCI-E x<insert insanely high number here> connectors on the motherboard. But i don't think PCs will be 100% quantum machines.
I'd anneal you with my D-Wave if you know what I mean
Google wants to create a "brain". I heard this from a friend who quit his job at google.
I should just start posting this in every quantum computing thread. It's an extremely simplified explanation of how a quantum computer works and the advantages it offers. [video=youtube;VyX8E4KUkWw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyX8E4KUkWw[/video] Keep in mind however that the last part is a bit outdated. Technology has advanced to the point where Quantum Computers can be created in a more practical size.
I wonder how many bitcoins you could mine with that beast, although if you got the money for a 15m computer you prolly don't need to mine for bitcoins. BUT I still wonder how many bit coins it could bang out in a day, we can dream can't we?
[QUOTE=st_nick5;40666252]So is this an actual quantum computer, or are they not quite there yet? I don't really understand these articles completely, but I still find them interesting.[/QUOTE] if your home computer required liquid nitrogen to run then yes it is, from a practical stance its still a little bit out there
[QUOTE=Eudoxia;40668728][URL=http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400]Reality bursts the hype bubble again![/URL] Emphasis mine.[/QUOTE] Plus you can tell it's not a quantum computer because quantum means small but this computer is big [editline]17th May 2013[/editline] You nerd types gotta stop overthinking things
Good move, NASA.
[QUOTE=ace13;40670192]I'm looking forward to maybe having another piece of hardware inside of the standard PC, instead of just an ALU and a FPU, the computers of tomorrow will also have a QBU - Quantum Bit Unit. Maybe it'll be part of the CPU itself, maybe it will be an expansion card that you slot into your PCI-E x<insert insanely high number here> connectors on the motherboard. But i don't think PCs will be 100% quantum machines.[/QUOTE] Crap, wanted to rate agree bu this is to awful to handleci cant be arsed tp rfceesgh
[QUOTE=proch;40675297]Crap, wanted to rate agree bu this is to awful to handleci cant be arsed tp rfceesgh[/QUOTE] It's okay, I love you anyway.
I'm still not quite sure I understand quantum computing. Give a new variable the value of 12 Set the value of the same variable to 25 for example. But since qubits can take different values at the same time, what will the print(variable) output ?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.