= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Baughn comments on Update on Kim Suozzi (cancer patient in want of cryonics) - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (61)
Here's one: http://phys.org/news/2012-08-d-wave-quantum-method-protein-problem.html
That doesn't apply to large proteins yet, but it doesn't make me optimistic about the nanotech timeline. (Which is to say, it makes me update in favor of faster R&D.)
Nobody believes in D-Wave.
That seems like an oversimplification. Clearly some people do.
Scott Aaronson:
I am not qualified to judge whether the D-Wave's claim that they use quantum annealing, rather than the standard simulated annealing (as Scott suspects) in their adiabatic quantum computing is justified. However, the lack of independent replication of their claims is disconcerting.
Maybe they could get Andrea Rossi to confirm.
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/08/d-wave-quantum-computer-solves-protein-folding-problem.html
You have a computer doing something we could already do, but less efficiently than existing methods, which have not been impressively useful themselves?
ETA: https://plus.google.com/103530621949492999968/posts/U11X8sec1pU
The G+ post explains what it's good for pretty well, doesn't it?
It's not a dramatic improvement (yet), but it's a larger potential speedup than anything else I've seen on the protein-folding problem lately.
You can duplicate that D-Wave machine on a laptop.
True, but somewhat besides the point; it's the asymptotic speedup that's interesting.
...you know, assuming the thing actually does what they claim it does. sigh
Also no asymptotic speedup.