IBM's 127 qubit Eagle chip out benchmarked two supercomputers. Holy Schmoly

Swan wrote:
https://singularityhub.com/2023/06/20/an-ibm-quantum-computer-beat-a-supercomputer-in-a-benchmark-test/

Computation and accuracy go hand in hand. But a new collaboration between IBM and UC Berkeley showed that perfection isn't necessarily required for solving challenging problems, from understanding the behavior of magnetic materials to modeling how neural networks behave or how information spreads across social networks.

The teams pitted IBM's 127-qubit Eagle chip against supercomputers at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and Purdue University for increasingly complex tasks. With easier calculations, the Eagle matched the supercomputer's results every time—suggesting that even with noise, the quantum computer could generate accurate responses. But where it shone was in its ability to tolerate scale, returning results that are—in theory—far more accurate than what's possible today with state-of-the-art silicon computer chips.

At the heart is a post-processing technique that decreases noise. Similar to looking at a large painting, the method ignores each brush stroke. Rather, it focuses on small portions of the painting and captures the general "gist" of the artwork.

The study, published in Nature, isn't chasing quantum advantage, the theory that quantum computers can solve problems faster than conventional computers. Rather, it shows that today's quantum computers, even when imperfect, may become part of scientific research—and perhaps our lives—sooner than expected. In other words, we've now entered the realm of quantum utility.

"The crux of the work is that we can now use all 127 of Eagle's qubits to run a pretty sizable and deep circuit—and the numbers come out correct," said Dr. Kristan Temme, principal research staff member and manager for the Theory of Quantum Algorithms group at IBM Quantum.

Yawning

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://singularityhub.com/2023/06/20/an-ibm-quantum-computer-beat-a-supercomputer-in-a-benchmark-test/

Computation and accuracy go hand in hand. But a new collaboration between IBM and UC Berkeley showed that perfection isn't necessarily required for solving challenging problems, from understanding the behavior of magnetic materials to modeling how neural networks behave or how information spreads across social networks.

The teams pitted IBM's 127-qubit Eagle chip against supercomputers at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and Purdue University for increasingly complex tasks. With easier calculations, the Eagle matched the supercomputer's results every time—suggesting that even with noise, the quantum computer could generate accurate responses. But where it shone was in its ability to tolerate scale, returning results that are—in theory—far more accurate than what's possible today with state-of-the-art silicon computer chips.

At the heart is a post-processing technique that decreases noise. Similar to looking at a large painting, the method ignores each brush stroke. Rather, it focuses on small portions of the painting and captures the general "gist" of the artwork.

The study, published in Nature, isn't chasing quantum advantage, the theory that quantum computers can solve problems faster than conventional computers. Rather, it shows that today's quantum computers, even when imperfect, may become part of scientific research—and perhaps our lives—sooner than expected. In other words, we've now entered the realm of quantum utility.

"The crux of the work is that we can now use all 127 of Eagle's qubits to run a pretty sizable and deep circuit—and the numbers come out correct," said Dr. Kristan Temme, principal research staff member and manager for the Theory of Quantum Algorithms group at IBM Quantum.

Quantum computers are decades away. A quantum computer will basically function like a human brain. No computer is close to knowing the difference
between an apple and a tomato. And that is the most basic test for AI.

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://singularityhub.com/2023/06/20/an-ibm-quantum-computer-beat-a-supercomputer-in-a-benchmark-test/

Computation and accuracy go hand in hand. But a new collaboration between IBM and UC Berkeley showed that perfection isn't necessarily required for solving challenging problems, from understanding the behavior of magnetic materials to modeling how neural networks behave or how information spreads across social networks.

The teams pitted IBM's 127-qubit Eagle chip against supercomputers at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and Purdue University for increasingly complex tasks. With easier calculations, the Eagle matched the supercomputer's results every time—suggesting that even with noise, the quantum computer could generate accurate responses. But where it shone was in its ability to tolerate scale, returning results that are—in theory—far more accurate than what's possible today with state-of-the-art silicon computer chips.

At the heart is a post-processing technique that decreases noise. Similar to looking at a large painting, the method ignores each brush stroke. Rather, it focuses on small portions of the painting and captures the general "gist" of the artwork.

The study, published in Nature, isn't chasing quantum advantage, the theory that quantum computers can solve problems faster than conventional computers. Rather, it shows that today's quantum computers, even when imperfect, may become part of scientific research—and perhaps our lives—sooner than expected. In other words, we've now entered the realm of quantum utility.

"The crux of the work is that we can now use all 127 of Eagle's qubits to run a pretty sizable and deep circuit—and the numbers come out correct," said Dr. Kristan Temme, principal research staff member and manager for the Theory of Quantum Algorithms group at IBM Quantum.

Quantum computers are decades away. A quantum computer will basically function like a human brain. No computer is close to knowing the difference
between an apple and a tomato. And that is the most basic test for AI.

You might have noticed that they conveniently omitted the specific "problems" supposedly processed by the computers. Now, unfortunately, no one can verify any aspect of this article, not even the government who happens to have plenty of supercomputers and plenty of functional test beds at the ready.

You have to be naive and gullible to fall for such a transparently dishonest press release.

Swan wrote:
https://singularityhub.com/2023/06/20/an-ibm-quantum-computer-beat-a-supercomputer-in-a-benchmark-test/

Computation and accuracy go hand in hand.

Swan wrote:
But a new collaboration between IBM and UC Berkeley showed that perfection isn't necessarily required for solving challenging problems, from understanding the behavior of magnetic materials to modeling how neural networks behave or how information spreads across social networks.

Swan wrote:
The teams pitted IBM's 127-qubit Eagle chip against supercomputers at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and Purdue University for increasingly complex tasks. With easier calculations, the Eagle matched the supercomputer's results every time—suggesting that even with noise, the quantum computer could generate accurate responses. But where it shone was in its ability to tolerate scale, returning results that are—in theory—far more accurate than what's possible today with state-of-the-art silicon computer chips.

Swan wrote:
At the heart is a post-processing technique that decreases noise. Similar to looking at a large painting, the method ignores each brush stroke. Rather, it focuses on small portions of the painting and captures the general "gist" of the artwork.

Swan wrote:
The study, published in Nature, isn't chasing quantum advantage, the theory that quantum computers can solve problems faster than conventional computers. Rather, it shows that today's quantum computers, even when imperfect, may become part of scientific research—and perhaps our lives—sooner than expected. In other words, we've now entered the realm of quantum utility.

Swan wrote:
"The crux of the work is that we can now use all 127 of Eagle's qubits to run a pretty sizable and deep circuit—and the numbers come out correct," said Dr. Kristan Temme, principal research staff member and manager for the Theory of Quantum Algorithms group at IBM Quantum.

Yawning

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://singularityhub.com/2023/06/20/an-ibm-quantum-computer-beat-a-supercomputer-in-a-benchmark-test/

Computation and accuracy go hand in hand. But a new collaboration between IBM and UC Berkeley showed that perfection isn't necessarily required for solving challenging problems, from understanding the behavior of magnetic materials to modeling how neural networks behave or how information spreads across social networks.

The teams pitted IBM's 127-qubit Eagle chip against supercomputers at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and Purdue University for increasingly complex tasks. With easier calculations, the Eagle matched the supercomputer's results every time—suggesting that even with noise, the quantum computer could generate accurate responses. But where it shone was in its ability to tolerate scale, returning results that are—in theory—far more accurate than what's possible today with state-of-the-art silicon computer chips.

At the heart is a post-processing technique that decreases noise. Similar to looking at a large painting, the method ignores each brush stroke. Rather, it focuses on small portions of the painting and captures the general "gist" of the artwork.

The study, published in Nature, isn't chasing quantum advantage, the theory that quantum computers can solve problems faster than conventional computers. Rather, it shows that today's quantum computers, even when imperfect, may become part of scientific research—and perhaps our lives—sooner than expected. In other words, we've now entered the realm of quantum utility.

"The crux of the work is that we can now use all 127 of Eagle's qubits to run a pretty sizable and deep circuit—and the numbers come out correct," said Dr. Kristan Temme, principal research staff member and manager for the Theory of Quantum Algorithms group at IBM Quantum.

Yawning

Quantum computers are decades away. A quantum computer will basically function like a human brain. No computer is close to knowing the difference
between an apple and a tomato. And that is the most basic test for AI.

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://singularityhub.com/2023/06/20/an-ibm-quantum-computer-beat-a-supercomputer-in-a-benchmark-test/

Computation and accuracy go hand in hand. But a new collaboration between IBM and UC Berkeley showed that perfection isn't necessarily required for solving challenging problems, from understanding the behavior of magnetic materials to modeling how neural networks behave or how information spreads across social networks.

The teams pitted IBM's 127-qubit Eagle chip against supercomputers at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and Purdue University for increasingly complex tasks. With easier calculations, the Eagle matched the supercomputer's results every time—suggesting that even with noise, the quantum computer could generate accurate responses. But where it shone was in its ability to tolerate scale, returning results that are—in theory—far more accurate than what's possible today with state-of-the-art silicon computer chips.

At the heart is a post-processing technique that decreases noise. Similar to looking at a large painting, the method ignores each brush stroke. Rather, it focuses on small portions of the painting and captures the general "gist" of the artwork.

The study, published in Nature, isn't chasing quantum advantage, the theory that quantum computers can solve problems faster than conventional computers. Rather, it shows that today's quantum computers, even when imperfect, may become part of scientific research—and perhaps our lives—sooner than expected. In other words, we've now entered the realm of quantum utility.

"The crux of the work is that we can now use all 127 of Eagle's qubits to run a pretty sizable and deep circuit—and the numbers come out correct," said Dr. Kristan Temme, principal research staff member and manager for the Theory of Quantum Algorithms group at IBM Quantum.

Quantum computers are decades away. A quantum computer will basically function like a human brain. No computer is close to knowing the difference
between an apple and a tomato. And that is the most basic test for AI.

You might have noticed that they conveniently omitted the specific "problems" supposedly processed by the computers. Now, unfortunately, no one can verify any aspect of this article, not even the government who happens to have plenty of supercomputers and plenty of functional test beds at the ready.

You have to be naive and gullible to fall for such a transparently dishonest press release.

James_ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://singularityhub.com/2023/06/20/an-ibm-quantum-computer-beat-a-supercomputer-in-a-benchmark-test/

Computation and accuracy go hand in hand. But a new collaboration between IBM and UC Berkeley showed that perfection isn't necessarily required for solving challenging problems, from understanding the behavior of magnetic materials to modeling how neural networks behave or how information spreads across social networks.

The teams pitted IBM's 127-qubit Eagle chip against supercomputers at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and Purdue University for increasingly complex tasks. With easier calculations, the Eagle matched the supercomputer's results every time—suggesting that even with noise, the quantum computer could generate accurate responses. But where it shone was in its ability to tolerate scale, returning results that are—in theory—far more accurate than what's possible today with state-of-the-art silicon computer chips.

At the heart is a post-processing technique that decreases noise. Similar to looking at a large painting, the method ignores each brush stroke. Rather, it focuses on small portions of the painting and captures the general "gist" of the artwork.

The study, published in Nature, isn't chasing quantum advantage, the theory that quantum computers can solve problems faster than conventional computers. Rather, it shows that today's quantum computers, even when imperfect, may become part of scientific research—and perhaps our lives—sooner than expected. In other words, we've now entered the realm of quantum utility.

"The crux of the work is that we can now use all 127 of Eagle's qubits to run a pretty sizable and deep circuit—and the numbers come out correct," said Dr. Kristan Temme, principal research staff member and manager for the Theory of Quantum Algorithms group at IBM Quantum.

Quantum computers are decades away. A quantum computer will basically function like a human brain. No computer is close to knowing the difference
between an apple and a tomato. And that is the most basic test for AI.

You might have noticed that they conveniently omitted the specific "problems" supposedly processed by the computers. Now, unfortunately, no one can verify any aspect of this article, not even the government who happens to have plenty of supercomputers and plenty of functional test beds at the ready.

You have to be naive and gullible to fall for such a transparently dishonest press release.

And I thought you with your computer graphics would buy into this crap. Then
again you "seem" to know the difference between a fruit and vegetable. Both
apples and tomatoes are fruits. Vegetables don't have seeds like a watermelon.
Peas, carrots and potatoes don't have seeds. Isn't that obvious? With computers,
super cooling is observed at about 57 kelvins at its warmest temperature. Qubits need to operate at temperatures below superconductive temperatures. Might be why they use liquid nitrogen for cooling as well as microwaves for flipping the qubits. No energy is lost when performing work.

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://singularityhub.com/2023/06/20/an-ibm-quantum-computer-beat-a-supercomputer-in-a-benchmark-test/

Computation and accuracy go hand in hand. But a new collaboration between IBM and UC Berkeley showed that perfection isn't necessarily required for solving challenging problems, from understanding the behavior of magnetic materials to modeling how neural networks behave or how information spreads across social networks.

The teams pitted IBM's 127-qubit Eagle chip against supercomputers at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and Purdue University for increasingly complex tasks. With easier calculations, the Eagle matched the supercomputer's results every time—suggesting that even with noise, the quantum computer could generate accurate responses. But where it shone was in its ability to tolerate scale, returning results that are—in theory—far more accurate than what's possible today with state-of-the-art silicon computer chips.

At the heart is a post-processing technique that decreases noise. Similar to looking at a large painting, the method ignores each brush stroke. Rather, it focuses on small portions of the painting and captures the general "gist" of the artwork.

The study, published in Nature, isn't chasing quantum advantage, the theory that quantum computers can solve problems faster than conventional computers. Rather, it shows that today's quantum computers, even when imperfect, may become part of scientific research—and perhaps our lives—sooner than expected. In other words, we've now entered the realm of quantum utility.

"The crux of the work is that we can now use all 127 of Eagle's qubits to run a pretty sizable and deep circuit—and the numbers come out correct," said Dr. Kristan Temme, principal research staff member and manager for the Theory of Quantum Algorithms group at IBM Quantum.

Yawning

Quantum computers are decades away. A quantum computer will basically function like a human brain. No computer is close to knowing the difference
between an apple and a tomato. And that is the most basic test for AI.

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://singularityhub.com/2023/06/20/an-ibm-quantum-computer-beat-a-supercomputer-in-a-benchmark-test/

Computation and accuracy go hand in hand. But a new collaboration between IBM and UC Berkeley showed that perfection isn't necessarily required for solving challenging problems, from understanding the behavior of magnetic materials to modeling how neural networks behave or how information spreads across social networks.

The teams pitted IBM's 127-qubit Eagle chip against supercomputers at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and Purdue University for increasingly complex tasks. With easier calculations, the Eagle matched the supercomputer's results every time—suggesting that even with noise, the quantum computer could generate accurate responses. But where it shone was in its ability to tolerate scale, returning results that are—in theory—far more accurate than what's possible today with state-of-the-art silicon computer chips.

At the heart is a post-processing technique that decreases noise. Similar to looking at a large painting, the method ignores each brush stroke. Rather, it focuses on small portions of the painting and captures the general "gist" of the artwork.

The study, published in Nature, isn't chasing quantum advantage, the theory that quantum computers can solve problems faster than conventional computers. Rather, it shows that today's quantum computers, even when imperfect, may become part of scientific research—and perhaps our lives—sooner than expected. In other words, we've now entered the realm of quantum utility.

"The crux of the work is that we can now use all 127 of Eagle's qubits to run a pretty sizable and deep circuit—and the numbers come out correct," said Dr. Kristan Temme, principal research staff member and manager for the Theory of Quantum Algorithms group at IBM Quantum.

Quantum computers are decades away. A quantum computer will basically function like a human brain. No computer is close to knowing the difference
between an apple and a tomato. And that is the most basic test for AI.

You might have noticed that they conveniently omitted the specific "problems" supposedly processed by the computers. Now, unfortunately, no one can verify any aspect of this article, not even the government who happens to have plenty of supercomputers and plenty of functional test beds at the ready.

You have to be naive and gullible to fall for such a transparently dishonest press release.

James_ wrote:
Remove the stem and what is the difference?
Their color and deformities will vary as well. Can you tell the difference between a bad apple and a rotten tomato?

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://singularityhub.com/2023/06/20/an-ibm-quantum-computer-beat-a-supercomputer-in-a-benchmark-test/

Computation and accuracy go hand in hand. But a new collaboration between IBM and UC Berkeley showed that perfection isn't necessarily required for solving challenging problems, from understanding the behavior of magnetic materials to modeling how neural networks behave or how information spreads across social networks.

The teams pitted IBM's 127-qubit Eagle chip against supercomputers at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and Purdue University for increasingly complex tasks. With easier calculations, the Eagle matched the supercomputer's results every time—suggesting that even with noise, the quantum computer could generate accurate responses. But where it shone was in its ability to tolerate scale, returning results that are—in theory—far more accurate than what's possible today with state-of-the-art silicon computer chips.

At the heart is a post-processing technique that decreases noise. Similar to looking at a large painting, the method ignores each brush stroke. Rather, it focuses on small portions of the painting and captures the general "gist" of the artwork.

The study, published in Nature, isn't chasing quantum advantage, the theory that quantum computers can solve problems faster than conventional computers. Rather, it shows that today's quantum computers, even when imperfect, may become part of scientific research—and perhaps our lives—sooner than expected. In other words, we've now entered the realm of quantum utility.

"The crux of the work is that we can now use all 127 of Eagle's qubits to run a pretty sizable and deep circuit—and the numbers come out correct," said Dr. Kristan Temme, principal research staff member and manager for the Theory of Quantum Algorithms group at IBM Quantum.

Yawning

Quantum computers are decades away. A quantum computer will basically function like a human brain. No computer is close to knowing the difference
between an apple and a tomato. And that is the most basic test for AI.

Sorry kid, quantum computers are happening right now, the human brain is not cryogenically cooled, and ai and quantum computers are not the same thing. So your brain is simply not functioning at all, but please continue babbling as you are amusing.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://singularityhub.com/2023/06/20/an-ibm-quantum-computer-beat-a-supercomputer-in-a-benchmark-test/

Computation and accuracy go hand in hand. But a new collaboration between IBM and UC Berkeley showed that perfection isn't necessarily required for solving challenging problems, from understanding the behavior of magnetic materials to modeling how neural networks behave or how information spreads across social networks.

The teams pitted IBM's 127-qubit Eagle chip against supercomputers at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and Purdue University for increasingly complex tasks. With easier calculations, the Eagle matched the supercomputer's results every time—suggesting that even with noise, the quantum computer could generate accurate responses. But where it shone was in its ability to tolerate scale, returning results that are—in theory—far more accurate than what's possible today with state-of-the-art silicon computer chips.

At the heart is a post-processing technique that decreases noise. Similar to looking at a large painting, the method ignores each brush stroke. Rather, it focuses on small portions of the painting and captures the general "gist" of the artwork.

The study, published in Nature, isn't chasing quantum advantage, the theory that quantum computers can solve problems faster than conventional computers. Rather, it shows that today's quantum computers, even when imperfect, may become part of scientific research—and perhaps our lives—sooner than expected. In other words, we've now entered the realm of quantum utility.

"The crux of the work is that we can now use all 127 of Eagle's qubits to run a pretty sizable and deep circuit—and the numbers come out correct," said Dr. Kristan Temme, principal research staff member and manager for the Theory of Quantum Algorithms group at IBM Quantum.

Quantum computers are decades away. A quantum computer will basically function like a human brain. No computer is close to knowing the difference
between an apple and a tomato. And that is the most basic test for AI.

You might have noticed that they conveniently omitted the specific "problems" supposedly processed by the computers. Now, unfortunately, no one can verify any aspect of this article, not even the government who happens to have plenty of supercomputers and plenty of functional test beds at the ready.

You have to be naive and gullible to fall for such a transparently dishonest press release.

Wrong because they specifically said that the quantum computer was still faster, even with the noise.

You may now resume fingerpainting

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:
https://singularityhub.com/2023/06/20/an-ibm-quantum-computer-beat-a-supercomputer-in-a-benchmark-test/

Computation and accuracy go hand in hand. But a new collaboration between IBM and UC Berkeley showed that perfection isn't necessarily required for solving challenging problems, from understanding the behavior of magnetic materials to modeling how neural networks behave or how information spreads across social networks.

The teams pitted IBM's 127-qubit Eagle chip against supercomputers at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and Purdue University for increasingly complex tasks. With easier calculations, the Eagle matched the supercomputer's results every time—suggesting that even with noise, the quantum computer could generate accurate responses. But where it shone was in its ability to tolerate scale, returning results that are—in theory—far more accurate than what's possible today with state-of-the-art silicon computer chips.

At the heart is a post-processing technique that decreases noise. Similar to looking at a large painting, the method ignores each brush stroke. Rather, it focuses on small portions of the painting and captures the general "gist" of the artwork.

The study, published in Nature, isn't chasing quantum advantage, the theory that quantum computers can solve problems faster than conventional computers. Rather, it shows that today's quantum computers, even when imperfect, may become part of scientific research—and perhaps our lives—sooner than expected. In other words, we've now entered the realm of quantum utility.

"The crux of the work is that we can now use all 127 of Eagle's qubits to run a pretty sizable and deep circuit—and the numbers come out correct," said Dr. Kristan Temme, principal research staff member and manager for the Theory of Quantum Algorithms group at IBM Quantum.

Yawning

Quantum computers are decades away. A quantum computer will basically function like a human brain. No computer is close to knowing the difference
between an apple and a tomato. And that is the most basic test for AI.

Sorry kid, quantum computers are happening right now, the human brain is not cryogenically cooled, and ai and quantum computers are not the same thing. So your brain is simply not functioning at all, but please continue babbling as you are amusing.

There is no such thing as a quantum computer. It is NOT happening right now. You are just falling for the BS because you deny and discard science and engineering.