Quantum Supremacy: How the Quantum Computer Revolution Will Change Everything

Product Information

If you ask a normal computer to figure its way out of a maze, it will try every single branch in turn, ruling them all out individually until it finds the right one. A quantum computer can go down every path of the maze at once. It can hold uncertainty in its head. on Friday, May 19th, 2023 at 5:15 am and is filed under Quantum, Rage Against Doofosity, Speaking Truth to Parallelism. This is justified by a bizarre paragraph about lattice gauge theory, which explains that since we can’t solve QCD analytically, here’s what theorists do:

Quantum simulation speeding up progress in biochemistry, high-temperature superconductivity, and the like is at least plausible—though very far from guaranteed, since one has to beat the cleverest classical approaches that can be designed for the same problems (a point that Kaku nowhere grapples with).Scott Aaronson has read the book and confirms that it’s every bit as awful as it seems. For a different look at out-of-control quantum […] Expertly describes and rectifies common misconceptions about quantum computing—a technology regarded by experts as one that is likely to have profound societal implications. . . . Kaku deftly navigates the relevant scientific landscape. . . . Lucid. . . . Kaku excels at developing understandable metaphors for the complexities of quantum mechanics and computing. . . . Well written and accessible, offering readers a comprehensive overview of quantum computing, its underlying principles, and its potential.” — Science In any case, he’s far from the only true believer. Corporations such as IBM, Google, Microsoft and Intel are investing heavily in the technology, as is the Chinese government, which has developed a 113 qubit computer called Jiuzhang. So, assuming for a moment quantum dreams do become a reality: is it responsible to accentuate the positive, as Kaku does? What about the possibility of these immense capabilities being used for ill?

Some things are better left unsaid. I ask you, Professor Aaronson – no more posts like these, for the sake of the people and our industry.

Customer reviews

Knox #1: As a test, I tried asking GPT-4 to write a quantum computing explainer in the style of Michio Kaku, and it indeed generated similar prose with similar misconceptions. But then I asked it to write it in the style of Scott Aaronson and it did the same… 😀 I’ve never heard of Kaku, perhaps because the days of roaming through a bookstore looking at the popular science shelves have passed. Based on your review, I strongly suspect that Kaku asked ChatGPT to write it. A warts-and-all portrait of the famed techno-entrepreneur—and the warts are nearly beyond counting. Update: I’ve now been immersed in the AI safety field for one year, let I wouldn’t consider myself nearly ready to write a book on the subject. My knowledge of related parts of CS, my year studying AI in grad school, and my having created the subject of computational learning theory of quantum states would all be relevant but totally insufficient. And AI safety, for all its importance, has less than quantum computing does in the way of difficult-to-understand concepts and results that basically everyone in the field agrees about. And if I did someday write such a book, I’d be pretty terrified of getting stuff wrong, and would have multiple expert colleagues read drafts. I think (hope) that you have missed the point of Sabine’s comment: using a numerical model of a theory to test its predictions against some actual experimental measurements, as in the case of Hulse-Taylor or a huge number of other cases (the detection of gravitational waves, for instance) is an entirely different thing than ‘testing’ a theory for which no experimental evidence exists using a numerical simulation.