What is Digg?57 Comments
- lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+40"It operates at 5 milliKelvin, just a hair above absolute zero."
Hmmm, i'm going to have to get myself some better fans. - BigDelite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23Will the computer exist and then "non-exist" on your desktop?
- arbulus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17It will do both at the same time!
- cmiller1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18But will it run Oregon Trail?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12It will crash and not crash at the same time.
- hhOwArdrOarKk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"I don't understand. I Dugg this article like I was supposed to, Al, why didn't I leap yet?"
- eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum mechanics cannot possibly have understood it."
- S1L3NTC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9When your brain reaches a temperature of 5 milliKelvin, I'll be glad to install it for you.
- curios, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Some useful links from previous comments
by surgestrip on 2/08/07
want to see what its about watch the lecture this thing is for real Dwave has been on this for some time
http://stanford-online.stanford.edu/courses/ee380/060412-ee380-300.asx
by lobster on 2/08/07
There is a strong intelligence led need for Quantum computing and the infrastructure for open sourcing languages such as QCL (already being simulated) and ASQ (theoretical only) is being developed.
http://tmxxine.com/Wikka/wikka.php?wakka=FaqsTmxxine
images-
http://dwave.wordpress.com/files/2007/02/img_5568-2.jpg
http://dwave.wordpress.com/files/2007/02/lef-plate-tunnel.jpg
http://dwave.wordpress.com/files/2007/02/sample-holder-with-europa-chip_small.JPG - CCB0x45, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Does this mean we will be able to finally digg stuff up AND down?
- badmephisto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+72+2 = 4... 90% of the time :)
- dafragsta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Damn. Imagine a Beowulf clus-... Oh wait. This isn't Slashdot.
- Valleye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6OK I dug through wikipedia to learn what the hell superposition and all the buzz words are. I need a yellow book, "Quantum Mechanics for Dummies", cuz I did not learn anything. I tried to I tried hard and I do not think I am dumb. Well maybe I am.
- Caleb83, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8More likely, it would compute every possible calculation, and when you ask for a specific task, it would be able to give the result to you instantly, since every possibility has already been worked out. I think this is called superposition, but I'm not certain.
- theLurcher, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This was part of a 3 article series - one on the business, one on the science, one on the math. You can read the other two here:
science: http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/2/12/7008
math: http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/2/12/7012 - floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Damm....I just deleted my bladder control subroutine.
(wets pants) - clayh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@cmiller1: it would, but it already knows you're going to lose your oxen trying to ford that goddamn river.
bastards. - curios, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5you're not alone there,you can read thousands and thousands of pages and still not understand.
- the_po8, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6There's a lot of red flags here. It is strongly believed that QP < NP. 16 qubits is not yet terribly interesting. The Ars Technica experts are not convinced of the utility of the system. The demo is going to be entirely remote. According to Ars Technica DWave has no publication history.
I sincerely hope that this thing is for real. (Actually, I'm lying. A working quantum computer creates way more problems than it solves. But I digress.) If it were a fraud or was produced by well-meaning idiots, though, it seems to me that it would look pretty much the same as what we're seeing. Have I missed something? - Valleye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You are right, Buzz word imply marketing-speak. I apologize for using that term.
I am still having trouble understanding QM. It seems like a magic and Star Trek mashup. I watched all the PBS/Nova shows on String theory too. I guess there are just some things that I will not understand without post-secondary physics.
I have tons of respect for scientists, theoretical physics guys and those cancer researchers too, wow. Makes UNIX administration look like Lego. - egrefen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@caleb83
Wrong... no quantum computing algorithm will produce instant results. In fact, most quantum computing algorithms, such as Shor's algorithm, are more inefficient than classical computing algorithms for simpler operations (factorising a number less than a thousand or so digits long), and reach a breaking point where they become quicker (factorising a number more than a thousand or so digits long).
You're on the right path in principle, and it is indeed because of superposition of the states of the quantum register, so you get points for trying. - Prysorra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Computer no. Your recent work.....yes.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If I had such a chip could I run Windows Vista WITH the sidebar and Firefox running both at the same time?
I doubt it. - JohnboiWaltune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I forget who said it, but the question of whether or not a computer can think is about as interesting as the question of whether or not a submarine can swim. :)
- codesuidae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4When you can simultaneously understand and not understand QM, then you'll know you're really starting to get it.
- DrScott, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4By "detour" the author means his personal opinion of the motives behind D-Wave's project. He does introduce the basic theory behind the processor, though. Good read.
- ollj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Datastorageguy is assuming that consciousness requires omniscience beyond the universe that builds it... or a breaking of Groedels incompleteness theorem; that a set of simple rules/axiomes either requires an unlimited and incomplete subset of new rules to keep making sensee (and thus staying incomplete) or that the set of simple rules sooner or later leads into self contradicting paradoxa. "law books (that include basic math) are either self contradicting or incomplete."
Groedels theorem fails in the abstraction of reality that math is, but math is still a pretty useful and accurate abstraction within metric scales. Buuuut we're talking quantum here.
(Datastorageguy also assumes that conscious (quantum computers) are forced to include basic addition and multiplication for Groedels theorems to work)
I put it this way, random combinations combine further (eating energy) and those that work best in the environment and are more common automatically lead to sensory, motoric and data processing / decision making (this probably was not bound to happen, but it did). All those increase through further selection and struggle until the sum of its parts somewhere someday gains the ability to notice itself in the mirror and starts to understand itself and its world more and more.
Anything gaining a concept of what it is made of and what its world is made, I call conscious.
Most AI s fail basic decision making because they are too simple to wage complex long term decisions, most are just to slow for any decision in time so there is just not enough speed for long term thinking. They have no strategies that use experience. A bains experience builds up HUGE matrixes that have been trained when to fire signals to what other braincells and when not to. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This seems like the sort of thing that could really jumpstart the actually intelligent AI computers... or am I missing the point?
- datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@dclowd9901
You are to a certain extent. Yes computing power will increase the calculations a "AI" system can do in a certain time frame, but it will not allow it to achieve consciousness. A machine will simply appear to be more intelligent.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose and the insolubility of the halting problem inherent in Turing machines. Godel's incompleteness theorem is the reason, according to Penrose, that machines cannot achieve awareness, etc. - jonahan52, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Hrm, My cat is named Orion..
- playerslight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It appears, from the article, that this may be the VHS analogue in quantum computing; not necessarily the best system, but if dwave can create a large enough network effect they'll still end up the king of the hill.
A better, yet completely incompatible system that arrives too late to the scene will be doomed if dwave can create a critical mass of software developers and customers. Kudos to the R&D and management teams for getting this product out. And I agree with drscott, it's a good read, even if it is interspersed with the authors conjectures.
Now if only someone can provide a first-hand account of the launch... - ollj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4in the quantum internet no host is certain.
- eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3sorry, I thought they demonstrated that it works today
- JasonPrini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@datastorageguy
How do I know for sure you're not artificial, or even real? How do you know you're real?
"A machine will simply appear to be more intelligent." - What's the difference?
I agree with you though, QC does not look like the way to artificial consciousness.
How much of me needs to be amputated for me to no longer be me? Children who lose an entire hemisphere of their brain adapt and grow up normal, so it's not entirely the brain. Every atom in your body is replaced every ~7 years. The person who spilled the orange Juice when he was 9 is not me, not a single cell, molecule or atom, even though we are the same person genetically and historically.
OK, getting off topic maybe, but you got me thinking... :) - daborg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The problem is that they won't know the outcome of the demo until after it's happened.
- DexDoomsday, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Donald Fagen said it best in his song I.G.Y(International Geophysical Year)
A just machine to make big decisions
Programmed by fellows with compassion and vision
We'll be clean when their work is done
We'll be eternally free yes and eternally young... - Zoltair, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wake me when they demo a preemptive processor.....
- ollj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You're mentioning way to many paradoxes there. One being the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus , which only exists when you use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprecise_language for definitions.
Your brain example pretty much fits the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy in reverse by removing braincell after braincell.. - KingVegas702, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Soo.....When can i get this installed in my brain, tax time is amost over!!
- ollj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think consciousness is not so much a matter of the used medium (you may use many atom/element combinations even telephone relays) or on its operating speed (and thus also not on its size, though a much slower consciousness is relatively useless), but a lot more a matter of the potential of its algorithms to understand parts of itself (recursive) and the ability of the used atom combinations to build networks that represent and simulate something useful for the network.
- datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Edit: Will the sum of two even squares ever equal a negative number? should say:
Will the sum of two even squares ever equal a odd number? - datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ollj
I think you could have summed up your point by simply stating: The more calculations/time a machine can make, the closer it gets towards consciousness. I truly don't believe this is true. (By saying "put it this way, random combinations combine further (eating energy) " are you referring to entropy?)
Yes, the faster a processor, the more actions/reactions a machine can make and can be trained to accomplish tasks and to make decisions that will make the machine appear to have true intelligence. This will still not allow it to solve the halting problem or have true intelligence. One example (and yes it is over simplified) is the question of:
Will the sum of two even squares ever equal a negative number?
Well of course it won't...but try asking a machine this question. It will endlessly calculate the equation of n^2 + n^2 = x until the all the stars in the universe die out and beyond. Sure you can program the computer to stop at x # of calculations or insert useful algorithms that would help but this would not be the machine itself doing the work. There is no mathematical proof that it never does equal a negative number as far as I know. So how do we know that it won't?
Goedel's theorem says that within any formal mathematical system there exists an axiom that can neither be proven true or false. A simple example is:
You see a man walking on the road. All you can ascertain about his truthfullness are the words he speaks to you (body language, etc. is out) He says to you, "I am a liar". If he is being truthful, and that he is a liar, then this negates the statement because he would be lieing. If he is lieing, then he is a liar and this negates the statement as well. - DocDEB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I hope they build it then maybe will find out if the cat is alive or dead.
- shinynew, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://digg.com/tech_news/Quantum_Computer_Demonstrated
link from the horses mouth - http://www.dwavesys.com/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=4&cntnt01origid=15&cntnt01returnid=21 - RainDrizzleFog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yay, Quantum Leap joke!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I was hoping someone hadn't already come up with this comment.
- datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2 Is there anything in Orion's belt? Some guys in big spaceships are asking for it.
- ollj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1the german title of that series translates back to "back into the past".
very original. - CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6I bet it still can't run vista efficiently. Must be a hardware issue.
- meshman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Does it exist at absolute zero?
-
Show 51 - 54 of 54 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
