Google Demonstrates Quantum Computer Image Search

An anonymous reader sends along this quote from New Scientist: "Google's web services may be considered cutting edge, but they run in warehouses filled with conventional computers. Now the search giant has revealed it is investigating the use of quantum computers to run its next generation of faster applications. Writing on Google's research blog this week, Hartmut Neven, head of its image recognition team, reveals that the Californian firm has for three years been quietly developing a quantum computer that can identify particular objects in a database of stills or video (PDF). Google has been doing this, Neven says, with D-Wave, a Canadian firm that has developed an on-chip array of quantum bits — or qubits — encoded in magnetically coupled superconducting loops."

Well...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

That would be an interesting departure from their usual "cheap commodity whiteboxes" strategy.

Re:Already Skynet protects itself

[Sebilrazen]

In addition to this, Google usually seeks permits for their data center projects using companies (LLCs) that don’t mention Google at all, for example Lapis LLC in North Carolina and Tetra LLC in Iowa.

That's not a Google thing, that's a standard practice. I know for sure AT&T does it, Global Switch [globalswitch.com] in Amsterdam is one of the locations that AT&T has set up operations.

"Quantum Computing" the next "Cloud Computing"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will faux "quantum computing" become the next over-hyped marketing "strategy" of numerous vendors, much like "cloud computing" has become? Will we be subjected to endless presentations, advertisements, adverblogs, promotions and webcasts about how fantastic it is, even though it doesn't deliver on any of its promises?

I sure as fuck hope not. It's difficult enough already at my company just getting a simple web server set up. We spend more time fighting off idiot managers who insist we just use "the cloud" and the server will just magically happen.

Google oggles

[HKcastaway]

...to for Google to best look at the pictures in your drive.

Re:Wel, There goes encryption...

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Apparently, there also goes... spelling...

(Ease bit: quantum computers tend to be specialized for particular algorithms, and we should be moving on to one-time pads anyway (Which are theoretically unbreakable absent social engineering or major design flaw), with some kind of automated exchange of random data whenever we physically visit our banks.)

Re:Oh no, not D-Wave.

[Anonymous Coward]

How fortunate for Google that they have you to reveal the truth. I'm sure a multinational company specializing in information technology never thought of that.

I literally cannot tell if they are serious.

[Eric S. Smith]

I'm sorry, this looks like something that was thrown out of an early draft of Johnny Mnemonic:

adiabatic quantum algorithm by magnetically coupling superconducting loops called rf-squid flux qubits.

Not only can I not tell if they're serious, I can't even tell if that means anything.

The math they present, or even the math on the Wikipedia page for Grover's algorithm, is also completely beyond me. I blame Alan Turing for all of this: if he'd cracked Nazi codes with poetry instead of with math, I'd probably be able to understand computer science.

As it is, I have to assign a probability p=0.5 to Google posting another blog entry tomorrow in which they admit to making the whole thing up and being tempted to include a reference to "Cookie Monster's postulate" along side "Grover's algorithm".

Re:Oh no, not D-Wave.

[pifactorial]

Yeah, my first thought was basically, "Ah, Google got a hold of them. That explains why they've been quiet for so long." It's kind of funny that even Google admits they don't quite know what's going on ("various institutions are still in the process of characterizing the chip"), but the fact that it actually, you know, works, has to count for something.

Re:Oh no, not D-Wave.

[Interoperable]

Wait until all the data's in. I suspect this will revealed to be a coincidence; perhaps not, but I still believe that to be likely. In any case, search for D-Wave and have a read through the link I posted in my follow-up. D-Wave has made some completely incorrect statements in the past and a few out-and-out lies. Maybe they have pulled off what they claim, but there are some very valid doubts raised by the leading researchers in the field. They have certainly never proved quantum operation in a public demonstration.

From TFA:

Finally, we mention that the experiments presented here were not designed to test the quantumness of the hardware. Results of such tests will be reported elsewhere.

Wait until those tests are published in a public forum and are analyzed by experts (not ./ers) before assuming that they in any way have a quantum computer.

finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally some technology from google that is not some trivial extension of existing stuff...
I guess it will be long though, before we can expect our flying cars...

Re:Say good bye to RSA

[Jeremi]

If Google is capable of this what do you think the NSA and friends are capable of?

I'm confused -- I thought government was a bunch of hopelessly incompetent bunglers, capable only of wasting taxpayer money, stifling Free Enterprise, and making baby Atlas shrug. Does it turn out that they are super-elite technical wizards, after all?

Re:Oh no, not D-Wave.

[ldg]

If you were to make a "quantum leap" that made quantum computing practical, it might behoove you to send mixed signals with your PR. You would want to attract the attention of a buyer who is: 1. aggressively seeking 2. able to pay for, and 3. able to roll out such technology; and you would want to be able to offer something like exclusivity to that buyer. But your public demonstrations would have reduced your competitors' R&D costs, by proving that such a thing is possible. If you "throw" your public demonstrations (make yourself seem like a sensationalistic liar), later you can more easily sweep away most credible evidence of your technology. But your truly motivated buyer will notice even your lame demonstration. Your buyer gets the technology, not in complete secrecy, but in relative, practical secrecy, because no public information about the technology is credible. With apologies to Karl Popper.

Re:Well...

[Nefarious Wheel]

That would be an interesting departure from their usual "cheap commodity whiteboxes" strategy

In the short term, yes. In the long term, perhaps not. On the scale of things Google they're likely to turn into "cheap commodity quantum whiteboxes".

Either that, or everybody will be able to use the same one simultaneously.

I project there will be a world need for five of them. None of them will need more than 640k and there will be no need for a personal version in the home.