My level of expertise on quantum computing is very low.
The announce of the imminent advent of the Quantum Computer seems to be recurring every few months since at least 20 years, at this point I don't care anymore.
As a licensed quantum computologist (um... not really, but I do work for a major QC effort)... your skepticism is not misplaced.
I can only speak for my place of work (not publicly) and pass along scuttlebutt... but, my understanding is that it's largely the same everywhere. Some efforts have tight budgets, some have billions backing them; but QC research is hugely expensive with more unknowns than knowns. People giving out the cash want results sooner than later. At my workplace, the researchers are in a continual pitched battle with management to keep a rein on marketing, limit expectations, etc., and it's a major distraction. When management misunderstands an early result, and oversells it to their superiors (if not the press!), suddenly they think it's appropriate to make "Quantum Supremacy" a task with a 6-month deadline.
It all makes me want to crawl into a box and take a nap.
Only popular science articles and marketing shticks discuss “imminent quantum computers” in the sense of a commercially viable machine that displaces existing classical computers. Quantum computers exist. They can solve real-world problems, like simulating molecules. They don’t, however, outperform your cell phone in any “practical”/“real-world” problem.
Google’s supremacy result is an indicator of progress, not an indicator of practicality or “advantage”. Google knows this, and hasn’t claimed anything more.
The supremacy result should be viewed only for its scientific meaning and merit and nothing more.
No one is saying quantum computing for practical use is upon us. Quantum supremacy is a well defined milestone that doesn't say anything about everyday use of QC.
No that's the funniest aspect of the Google result. They barely have any control over what their gates do.
Gil makes this point, but doesn't call it out: they're claiming supremacy by turning the challenge around. "You can't classically simulate our device (which largely does it's own thing because of issues)."
A kid shoots an arrow at a target. The arrow hits the haybale, but not the target. Suddenly the kid yells "I bet you can't hit my arrow!" and claims Archer Supremacy because nobody even cares to try. Are you impressed? I'm not.
Scott Aaronson's description of the result made it out to be more subtle. If I understood it properly, it might be more like the kid shooting 20 arrows, which all form a particular pattern around a point that the kid can't choose or control at all. Now a regular archer can readily choose a particular point, in a way that the kid can't, but can't produce the sort of pattern that the kid does with nearly as much accuracy and nearly as little effort.
Or to make a less specific analogy, there is something about the kid's archery that regular archers can't replicate with their archery skills, but it's not really something that anyone would traditionally have described as "skilled archery". Then Aaronson and Kalai disagree about whether or not this unusual feat that's not very easy to relate conceptually to the ability to hit targets is a sign that the kid is plausibly going to be able to achieve traditional archery skill in the future.
> Or to make a less specific analogy, there is something about the kid's archery that regular archers can't replicate with their archery skills, but it's not really something that anyone would traditionally have described as "skilled archery".
> They barely have any control over what their gates do.
I don't understand this, could you explain?
My understanding is that the gates are perfectly normal quantum gates, which they use to connect qubits in a programmable way. Due to the probabilistic nature of quantum computing, running this circuit generates samples from a random distribution.
I attended a Google talk where they acknowledged difficulty in controlling their device. That was given as the motivation for running problems that consist of "random gates".
My understanding from reading Scott Aaronson's FAQ is that the "random" in "random gates" just means that they pick a random circuit to evaluate. But this circuit is known, just like a program can pick a random number and then print it out.
The fact that quantum computing behaves "randomly" by nature further complicates the discussion :)
The announce of the imminent advent of the Quantum Computer seems to be recurring every few months since at least 20 years, at this point I don't care anymore.