←back to thread

429 points AbhishekParmar | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0.333s | source | bottom
1. einsteinx2 ◴[] No.45670681[source]
> demonstrates the first-ever algorithm to achieve verifiable quantum advantage on hardware.

Am I crazy or have I heard this same announcement from Google and others like 5 times at this point?

replies(4): >>45670723 #>>45671023 #>>45672007 #>>45676347 #
2. ortusdux ◴[] No.45670723[source]
I'd classify this one as different as it accompanies a publication in Nature - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09526-6
replies(2): >>45673386 #>>45674693 #
3. joshuaissac ◴[] No.45671023[source]
It's the third one I am seeing from Google specifically.
4. auxiliarymoose ◴[] No.45672007[source]
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.

5. rowanG077 ◴[] No.45673386[source]
How is an accompanying publication in nature worth anything in this context?
replies(1): >>45675078 #
6. nicce ◴[] No.45674693[source]
I think it was in Nature last time as well…
7. jonas21 ◴[] No.45675078{3}[source]
It's unlikely that it would be accepted for publication in a top peer-reviewed journal if there wasn't something novel.
8. Veedrac ◴[] No.45676347[source]
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.'