My understanding is that this one is "verifiable" which means you get a reproducible result (i.e. consistent result comes out of a computation that would take much longer to do classically).
Non-verifiable computations include things like pulling from a hard-to-compute probability distribution (i.e. random number generator) where it is faster, but the result is inherently not the same each time.
This is as would be expected if it were real. Advantage isn't a black and white thing, because the comparison starts against 'any task done the best we know how to do using the most resources we happen to be willing to throw at it, even if we don't have a means to check that the output was correct', and ends at 'useful output you can formally verify where you have a strong reason to believe no classical algorithm would be effective.'
Before the mega monopolies took over, corps used to partner with universities to conduct this kind of research. Now we have bloated salaries, rich corporations, and expensive research while having under experienced graduates. These costs will get forwarded to the consumer. The future won’t have a lot of things that we have come to expect.
the big problem with quantum advantage is that quantum computing is inherently error-prone and stochastic, but then they compare to classical methods that are exact
let a classical computer use an error prone stochastic method and it still blows the doors off of qc
> Quantum computing-enhanced NMR could become a powerful tool in drug discovery, helping determine how potential medicines bind to their targets, or in materials science for characterizing the molecular structure of new materials like polymers, battery components or even the materials that comprise our quantum bits (qubits)
There is a section in the article about future real world application, but I feel like these articles about quantum "breakthroughs" are almost always deliberately packed with abstruse language. As a result I have no sense about whether these suggested real world applications are a few years away or 50+ years away. Does anyone?
"surpassing even the fastest classical supercomputers (13,000x faster)"
"Quantum verifiability means the result can be repeated on our quantum computer — or any other of the same caliber — to get the same answer, confirming the result."
"The results on our quantum computer matched those of traditional NMR, and revealed information not usually available from NMR, which is a crucial validation of our approach."
It certainly seems like this time, there finally is a real advantage?
Notice how they say "quantum advantage" not "supremacy" and "a (big) step toward real-world applications". So actually just another step as always. And I'm left to doubt if the classic algorithm used for comparison was properly optimised.
I'll believe quantum computing exists when someone releases the factors of an RSA or DSA keypair with economic value, or at least a keypair not generated by the same people factoring it. Something like the code signing keys for Apple's boot ROM, or the root key of a well-trusted CA. It doesn't even have to be their current keys, it can be something older / shorter, as long as it's outside the time horizon of classical factoring.
The last time I heard a similar news from Google, it turned out they were solving a quantum phenomenon using a quantum phenomenon. It seems to be the same pattern here. Not to say it's not progress, but kind of feels like overhyped.
So, "verifiable" here means "we ran it twice and got the same result"?
> Quantum verifiability means the result can be repeated on our quantum computer — or any other of the same caliber — to get the same answer, confirming the result.
Afaik we are a decade or two away from quantum supremacy. All the AI monks, forget that if AI is the future, quantum supremacy is the present. And whoever controls the present, decides the future.
Rememeber, it is not about quantum general computing, it's about implementing the quantum computation of Shor's algorithm
54 comments
[ 0.28 ms ] story [ 68.7 ms ] threadAm I crazy or have I heard this same announcement from Google and others like 5 times at this point?
Non-verifiable computations include things like pulling from a hard-to-compute probability distribution (i.e. random number generator) where it is faster, but the result is inherently not the same each time.
The idea: Quantum Computation of Molecular Structure Using Data from Challenging-To-Classically-Simulate Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Experiments https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/abstract/10.1103/PRXQuan...
Verifying the result by another quantum computer (it hasn't been yet): Observation of constructive interference at the edge of quantum ergodicity https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09526-6
Not a big leap then.
My impression was that every problem a quantum computer solves in practice right now is basically reducible from 'simulate a quantum computer'
let a classical computer use an error prone stochastic method and it still blows the doors off of qc
this is a false comparison
There is a section in the article about future real world application, but I feel like these articles about quantum "breakthroughs" are almost always deliberately packed with abstruse language. As a result I have no sense about whether these suggested real world applications are a few years away or 50+ years away. Does anyone?
"Quantum verifiability means the result can be repeated on our quantum computer — or any other of the same caliber — to get the same answer, confirming the result."
"The results on our quantum computer matched those of traditional NMR, and revealed information not usually available from NMR, which is a crucial validation of our approach."
It certainly seems like this time, there finally is a real advantage?
> Quantum verifiability means the result can be repeated on our quantum computer — or any other of the same caliber — to get the same answer, confirming the result.
Rememeber, it is not about quantum general computing, it's about implementing the quantum computation of Shor's algorithm
As many times in the past quantum supremacy was claimed, and then, other groups have shown they can do better with optimized classical methods.