[HN Gopher] Unveiling our new Quantum AI campus
___________________________________________________________________
Unveiling our new Quantum AI campus
Author : asparagui
Score : 67 points
Date : 2021-05-18 17:47 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.google)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.google)
| joshu wrote:
| i saw a great documentary about this on hulu
| krohling wrote:
| 'Devs' was the first thing I thought of when I saw this
| announcement.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| Powered by not just one, but two buzzwords.
| rektide wrote:
| The IO video introducing Quantum AI campus was fantastically
| grating to me. There's so little to say, so little to share,
| about what is happening, what this is, what it's for: it's just
| pure marketing fluff, with the thinnest veneer of introductory
| technical material. 'This is some kind of chip. It goes in this
| cold thing we built. We're hoping to to inspire others.' Gee
| frigging thanks.
|
| Tech is either esoteric or exoteric. It either is a thing for
| only experts to understand and use and put to use, or it is
| something illuminating, something shareable, is a conveyable
| experience. Quantum AI combines two of the most opaque, hard to
| understand fields to make something whose prestige in large
| part rests upon it being entirely indecipherable to 99.9999999%
| of humanity.
|
| To which I just keep wanting to say, can we please make
| personal computing a thing again?
| sgt101 wrote:
| I think QNN are very interesting from a compsci perspective, and
| interesting from a quantum tech perspective, but not so much from
| a real world perspective.
|
| As I understand it loading classical data into a quantum computer
| - into quantum ram - is a big bottleneck. So running a QNN over a
| picture of a cat can't give a speedup vs. running it on a
| classical machine. Is this wrong HN?
|
| I haven't found a result showing QNN's do offer strong speedups
| for training or testing - I have found papers saying it looks
| good - but I haven't found the result. I think this may be a
| literature search fail by me though.
|
| For generalisation I _have_ seen papers claiming that there will
| be better generalisation with QNN but I _have_ failed to
| understand this result and _do_ need to work harder!
|
| I also believe that the most promising algorithm for quantum ML
| (HHL) has been "dequantized" I think that Grover's and QMC are
| pretty secure but also only quadratic in speed up (I say only -
| this is because that means there is a window of quantum advantage
| that may or may not be useful before the quantum algorithms fall
| off a cliff as well.
|
| Ok - I need to understand this stuff for real, so please shoot me
| to bits !
| lumost wrote:
| QC for optimization and other hard search problems is an
| interesting area for deeper exploration. It's possible that
| quantum optimizers could be exponentially faster than existing
| optimization techniques by evaluating multiple minima
| simultaneously.
|
| Throwing AI on the research campus does help focus what
| researchers will do there - e.g. research algorithms which can
| plausibly improve training, inference, and generalization of
| neural networks/ML models. Rather than researching other more
| "practical" QC applications such as cryptography.
| typon wrote:
| > It's possible that quantum optimizers could be
| exponentially faster than existing optimization techniques by
| evaluating multiple minima simultaneously.
|
| Is there any known quantum algorithm that gives a speedup
| over classical algorithms? I don't mean "call Grover as a
| subroutine" during your standard classical optimization
| algorithm.
| anon_tor_12345 wrote:
| I don't understand this question? Grover's algorithm is
| itself faster than classical search algos.
|
| It is as of yet unknown whether quantum computers are more
| powerful than classical computers; there is no proof that
| BQP is strictly bigger than P. There is oracle separation
| but that's not the same thing.
| sgt101 wrote:
| I think that BQP > P is not so important. Exponential
| advantage of _known_ qalg vs _known_ c_alg when the
| hardware is available is what 's important.
| sgt101 wrote:
| Oh sure, Shore's.
|
| Also a bunch more.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| I think Preskill just had a paper out showing average case
| advantages for common QML tasks.
| sgt101 wrote:
| do you have a link?
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Sorry, I misspoke slightly, but there is an advantage - htt
| ps://twitter.com/RobertHuangHY/status/1393263028150231041
| Out_of_Characte wrote:
| I was sceptical because 'AI' and 'quantum' seems to be used
| interchangeably and fits your regular snakeoil salestalk but
| google has done enormous amounts of research into non-classical
| computing. They've also done their AI projects to solve protein
| folding faster and more accurate than any contemporary solving
| models[1]. which is why the name sort of makes sense even though
| many on HN would appreciate nuance.
|
| "Nature is quantum mechanical: The bonds and interactions among
| atoms behave probabilistically, with richer dynamics that exhaust
| the simple classical computing logic."
|
| "Already we run quantum computers that can perform calculations
| beyond the reach of classical computers."[citation needed]
|
| [1] https://www.deepmind.com/blog/article/AlphaFold-Using-AI-
| for...
| Zenst wrote:
| > I was sceptical because 'AI' and 'quantum' seems to be used
| interchangeably and fits your regular snakeoil salestalk
|
| That was my first take - and akin to saying "quantum
| intelligence" which just reeks of marketing on a synergy
| overdrive mission.
|
| Of course they are just using quantum hardware/software
| approach towards AI type problems. So for me it may of been
| better to say Quantum Annealed AI. But then, as a campus name,
| it don't have that marketing ring going for it.
|
| One question though that will arise down the line will be
| ethics, with a classical computer you can drill down and
| understand fully every bit of decision making if needs be. With
| a quantum computer, not so easy at all. Maybe possible that
| they create a good quantum AI system but equally at the same
| time it is also an evil AI system, only that they observe only
| the good as that is what they are looking for.
|
| Philosophy is going to have a whole avenue of debate over this
| in years to come and who knows - AI psychology might be the
| future job we never expected to happen.
| ampdepolymerase wrote:
| You realize quantum computing is ultimately just a few linear
| algebra operations right? There is no more _magic_ in it than
| conventional neural network based models. Standard ML ethical
| frameworks are more than sufficient.
|
| Adding "quantum" simply means speed ups for a few specific
| types of operations. You are not going to get an AGI with the
| current state of the art in quantum computing.
| inasio wrote:
| No. See for example the Grover search algorithm. You can
| use to find whether an item is inside a list in O(sqrt(n)).
| spxtr wrote:
| I don't understand what you are saying. The parent
| comment said that quantum allows a few types of
| operations to get faster, and your response was "No,"
| followed by a specific algorithm that is faster. Where do
| you disagree?
| floatboth wrote:
| Are those quantum speed ups for neural nets even good?
|
| More specifically, are they better than the ones from
| "neuromorphic" chips like Intel Loihi?
| anon_tor_12345 wrote:
| >"Already we run quantum computers that can perform
| calculations beyond the reach of classical computers"
|
| Yea this isn't true. Their 54 qubit machine can simulate random
| circuits pretty fast but
|
| 1) that's not at all useful and specifically contrived as a
| test of "quantum supremacy".
|
| 2) totally debatable whether it's actually out of reach:
|
| >In the paper, it is argued that their device reached "quantum
| supremacy" and that "a state-of-the-art supercomputer would
| require approximately 10,000 years to perform the equivalent
| task." We argue that an ideal simulation of the same task can
| be performed on a classical system in 2.5 days and with far
| greater fidelity
|
| https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/10/on-quantum-suprem...
| jl2718 wrote:
| Personally I think we'll soon discover that what we're doing in
| 'quantum' is indistinguishable from classical analog at that
| frequency and noise temperature, and that will also be the point
| where it becomes broadly useful and scalable.
| uses wrote:
| Tiny feedback for anyone reading who worked on this page:
| https://quantumai.google/learn/lab
|
| It would be great if the audio clips had the standard seek bar
| with the ability to pause/play. Perhaps when I scroll up or down
| to a section, pause the current audio clip. Then resume playing
| it when I come back. But also allow me to seek around. Rather
| than just restarting from the beginning. Because these clips are
| several minutes long and I am given no indication of their
| length.
|
| Currently all I can do is either continue listening for an
| unknown amount of time, or go to the next/previous section and
| completely lose my progress.
| Animats wrote:
| In Santa Barbara?
|
| That should be interesting. There's been some good physics from
| there. Flash LIDAR came from Advanced Scientific Concepts there.
|
| UC Santa Barbara is Hollywood's vision of a college. Everyone is
| good-looking and the college is right on the beach.
| jboggan wrote:
| The hardware side has been up there for a long time, and the
| theoretical side of the team has been in the Venice office. I
| guess they got a new building in Santa Barbara and wanted an
| announcement. I wonder if they are forcing the theorists to move
| up north?
| AJRF wrote:
| I don't even know how to make strings in C, how the hell am I
| going to code on a quantum computer. Sigh.
| typon wrote:
| Why is it called Quantum AI? What does that mean?
| omrjml wrote:
| Here is a little explanation from TF quantum website.
| https://www.tensorflow.org/quantum/concepts
| Guest42 wrote:
| I'd also be curious the goals/budget of Quantum AI.
| timy2shoes wrote:
| The problem with defining clear goals for Quantum AI is that
| if you try to measure them then they will change.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| underrated comment
| astrange wrote:
| The one you measure won't change, just all the rest.
| ducttapecrown wrote:
| It means you brute force problems with linear algebra on a
| quantum computer, but quantum computers big enough to brute
| force things don't exist yet, so they've got a couple-hundred
| year plan to bootstrap themselves up there.
| luma wrote:
| Two buzzwords that sound like things that congress would want
| to have happening in America, lest anyone start thinking about
| taking action over monoploistic practices elsewhere in the
| company.
| andred14 wrote:
| I'm all for fixing hunger and reducing pollution but stop
| insulting our intelligence we are not stupid:
|
| 1. CO2 is not a problem and is in fact essential for life.
|
| In other words, there is NO climate change problem and supporting
| this is the fact that all previous climate change predictions
| have been wrong.
|
| 2. There is no real virus emergency as proven by statistics which
| show there was no increase in deaths after 2020.
|
| It was all a big lie used to usher in drastic and unwanted
| changes in society.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-18 23:01 UTC)