News Google $5M XPRIZE for best uses for Quantum Computers

  • Thread starter Thread starter jedishrfu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Google Quantum
AI Thread Summary
Google is actively seeking practical problems and algorithms that can be addressed using quantum computers, emphasizing the need for real-world applications to justify ongoing investments in the technology. Current quantum computers, with their limited qubit counts and high noise levels, cannot effectively run established algorithms like Shor's for large numbers, highlighting the gap between theoretical potential and practical capability. While some hard problems can be tackled with existing quantum hardware, they lack significant practical applications compared to classical computing solutions. The initiative aims to foster the development of useful algorithms for near-term quantum systems, acknowledging that current algorithms may not leverage the full potential of future fully error-corrected quantum machines. Overall, the discussion underscores the urgency of finding applicable uses for quantum computing to validate its future viability.
Physics news on Phys.org
jedishrfu said:
Google is looking for practical problems/algorithms that can be solved on quantum computers:
Does this mean QC now appears to be a useless toy, and that they need to find a real application that justifies the expenditure, so they can keep their jobs ?
 
Pretty much.

We have the technology now give us your problems.
 
Baluncore said:
Does this mean QC now appears to be a useless toy, and that they need to find a real application that justifies the expenditure, so they can keep their jobs ?
No, not at all.
We are very confident that large-scale, fully error corrected quantum computers will be able to solve a lot of real world problems; and we already have good algorithms that can be used for this (Shor's algorithm being the most famous, but probably not the most useful)

However, we are not there yet. The current generation of quantum computers have relatively few (~!00) qubits and these are still very noisy (no proper error correction) and that severely limits what can be done.; you can't e.g. run Shor's algorithm for anything but very small numbers. If you want to e.g., break RSA you might need a computer with lots fully error corrected logical qubits; and that might (if we are unlucky) require ~millions of physical qubits. That is we need to scale another factor of x1000 or so (plus solve a bunch of other problems).

There are a few "hard" problems (problems that are not practically solvable on a classical computer) that can be solved on current quantum computers, but none of these algorithms have any real practical use.

Hence, the prize is mainly about developing useful algorithms that can run on current or near-term hardware.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
f95toli said:
Hence, the prize is mainly about developing useful algorithms that can run on current or near-term hardware.
But anything useful, that will run on current QC hardware, will run faster on a PC or GPU.
Baluncore said:
... they need to find a real application that justifies the expenditure, so they can keep their jobs ?
 
Baluncore said:
But anything useful, that will run on current QC hardware, will run faster on a PC or GPU.
Right now, that is probably true; but I guess that is the point of the prize(!)

Note that the algorithms/circuits that are used for the current generation of QC is quite different from what would be used on a fully error-corrected machine. Right now, all circuits have to finish running in a relatively short amount of time which severely limits the number of operations that can be run in each shot. In a fully error-corrected machine you should -in principle- be able to run arbitrary long circuits. Hence, you can't really "extrapolate" from what can be done today to what might be possible in the future.

The fact that there are some algorithms (say boson sampling) which DO run very quickly (much faster than what can be done using a supercomputer) even on current generation HW presumably means that there is no fundamental reason for why someone couldn't develop a fast algorithm that was actually useful.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar to the 2024 thread, here I start the 2025 thread. As always it is getting increasingly difficult to predict, so I will make a list based on other article predictions. You can also leave your prediction here. Here are the predictions of 2024 that did not make it: Peter Shor, David Deutsch and all the rest of the quantum computing community (various sources) Pablo Jarrillo Herrero, Allan McDonald and Rafi Bistritzer for magic angle in twisted graphene (various sources) Christoph...
Thread 'My experience as a hostage'
I believe it was the summer of 2001 that I made a trip to Peru for my work. I was a private contractor doing automation engineering and programming for various companies, including Frito Lay. Frito had purchased a snack food plant near Lima, Peru, and sent me down to oversee the upgrades to the systems and the startup. Peru was still suffering the ills of a recent civil war and I knew it was dicey, but the money was too good to pass up. It was a long trip to Lima; about 14 hours of airtime...
Back
Top