The CIA and Jeff Bezos Bet $30 Million On Quantum Computing Company

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The CIA and Jeff Bezos Bet $30 Million On Quantum Computing Company

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday October 4, 2012 @12:12PM from the always-bet-on-qubits dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The CIA's investment fund, In-Q-Tel, and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos have invested $30 million in a Canadian company that claims to build quantum computers, reports Technology Review in a detailed story on why that startup, D-Wave, appears to be attracting serious interest after years of skepticism from experts. A spokesman for In-Q-Tel says that intelligence agencies 'have many complex problems that tax classical computing architecture,' a feeling apparently strong enough to justify a bet on a radically different, and largely unproven, approach to computing."

42 of 73 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re: Why was this post headining coloured red? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 12:28 · Score: 1

Because they ran out of blue.
D-Wave might actually be legitimate by AdmiralXyz · 2012-10-04 12:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

Just a quick FYI: for those of you still assuming that D-Wave is a bunch of snake-oil salesman (like I did for a long time), take a look at this bit from Ars Technica. Basically what they've built is not a genuine quantum computer, but a sort of "quantum optimizer" that delivers speedups for some kinds of problems. Their crime might be that they just use too much marketing hyperbole, instead of being complete frauds.

--
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
1. Re:D-Wave might actually be legitimate by exomondo · 2012-10-04 13:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The accuracy is the fundamental problem, with no error correction (or at least indications that there is an error), which is one of the biggest problems with their approach, it's worse than useless. In the protein folding experiment it got the correct answer just 13 out of 10,000 times.
2. Re:D-Wave might actually be legitimate by w_dragon · 2012-10-04 13:30 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  That depends on the problem. I assume the CIA wants it for breaking encryption, which means they want it for factoring large numbers. That's a problem that is really hard for a normal computer to do, but really easy for it to verify. If factoring a 1024 bit number takes 10000 tries, and each try takes a second, you're still several orders of magnitude better than the current state of the art and you've rendered many of the current common encryption schemes useless.
3. Re:D-Wave might actually be legitimate by khallow · 2012-10-04 13:33 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  In the protein folding experiment it got the correct answer just 13 out of 10,000 times.
  Getting the right answer once can be good enough. It depends on how the relative cost of checking if an answer is correct. I gather this would be used to figure out NP complete problems (which I might add, the protein folding experiment may not be in) where finding the answer isn't known to be doable in polynomial time, but it can be checked in polynomial time.
4. Re:D-Wave might actually be legitimate by exomondo · 2012-10-04 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming you can actually get it that fast.
5. Re:D-Wave might actually be legitimate by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 13:48 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The NSA wants it for decryption and is smart enough to know an adiabatic quantum computer can't be applied to factorization problems. The CIA wants it for the same reason Google did, image comparison.
6. Re:D-Wave might actually be legitimate by hweimer · 2012-10-04 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  I think the big questions are how "quantum" (i.e., coherent) their devices actually are and whether this makes them more useful than their classical counterparts. And, if quantum optimization is a good idea to begin with.
  
  --
  OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
Re: Why was this post headining coloured red? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 12:30 · Score: 1

You want to get you eyes checked
That's not even pocket change for either of them.. by rsilvergun · 2012-10-04 12:36 · Score: 2

That's like me betting a nickle. Strike that. A plug nickle.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Re:That's not even pocket change for either of the by turkeydance · 2012-10-04 12:42 · Score: 1

ok. had to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm_-sW4Vktw
What is it with these public-private partnerships? by js33 · 2012-10-04 13:03 · Score: 3, Funny

The CIA's investment fund, In-Q-Tel,
You know, the government has absolutely no business running an investment fund, especially a "secret" one where it looks like there's no meaningful oversight. This is we the people's money, and we the people have no interest in being the angel to some sleazy fly-by-night foreign start-up who just wants to suck at Uncle Sam's ever-so-generous teat.
What does quantum computing mean for developers? by proca · 2012-10-04 13:06 · Score: 5, Funny

If I'm still developing when quantum computing becomes ubiquitous, how will programming work? Will booleans suddenly have 8 states? True, False, KindaTrue, MostlyFalse, Truthiness, TotallyBogus, WayCool, Cowabunga?
Re:What is it with these public-private partnershi by Charliemopps · 2012-10-04 13:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think its rather obvious that it's not secret... since we're talking about it. I'd rather the CIA be investing in new technologies and improving society. At least they didn't spend $30 million starting a war somewhere.
Re:That's not even pocket change for either of the by msauve · 2012-10-04 13:14 · Score: 1

Sure wish Bezos would spend a nickle to make Amazon search actually work.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:What does quantum computing mean for developers by aNonnyMouseCowered · 2012-10-04 13:24 · Score: 2

No need to wait. I have a quantum computer right here in my pocket. It's called a coin. You want eight possible states? Add three more nodes. It's highly efficient for answering life's toughest questions. And if I don't like the answer I can try again.
Re:What does quantum computing mean for developers by c0lo · 2012-10-04 13:32 · Score: 1

If I'm still developing when quantum computing becomes ubiquitous, how will programming work?
By that time, you should be past programming and have reached the management level; the questions at that level are of the nature of: what's the probability for the project to finish by X date, within Y budget and deliver Z?

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:What is it with these public-private partnershi by strat · 2012-10-04 13:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

The short answer is that the times have changed from back when government-funded applied research was a primary source of startup innovations. The reality is that small companies move faster and are more able to adjust to surprises in an agile manner than the Government. Now the tables have turned and the Government needs mechanisms to find new things because it's certainly not inventing them all in-house.
Speaking as one of the other members of the population, I have a few mixed feelings about the government using public funds for equity buys. Conversely, if that mechanism allows the USG to more rapidly gain access to novel inventions than they have and those inventions optimize the Government's performance, it's a drop in the bucket and probably saving the taxpayers a bundle.
If you find Google Earth useful, thank In-Q-Tel. When the startup that produced that technology was financed, only realtors in California had ever heard of it.
(Yes, I'm a little biased. I have been a part of some public-private partnerships that have performed well.)
More $$$ by Patent+Lover · 2012-10-04 13:58 · Score: 2

Is the CIA once again hoping some expensive technology will actually allow them to finally get something right?
1. Re:More $$$ by NEDHead · 2012-10-04 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  Since much of what the CIA does is, in fact, secret, it seems odd that you would imply that they have a poor record of performance. My knowledge of their actions, aside from what I have learned from Covert Affairs, is dominated by the few screwups that actually become public in one form or another. Do you have some privileged knowledge that you would like to share?
2. Re:More $$$ by Patent+Lover · 2012-10-04 14:28 · Score: 1
  
  The bomber gap, Bay of Pigs, Shah of Iran, Vietnam, Fall of the Soviet Union, Nicaragua, Iraq,
3. Re:More $$$ by NEDHead · 2012-10-04 14:36 · Score: 2
  
  Is this supposed to be some sort of refutation? If I listed seven things you screwed up in your life, would that damn you eternally?
  My point was simple, but I will restate it here for your edification: Their job is secret; they don't tell us what they do, as a rule; you and I have no basis for judging their performance; they may (or may not) have had many major successes that we would celebrate if we knew of them.
  We just don't know.
4. Re:More $$$ by Patent+Lover · 2012-10-04 14:44 · Score: 1
  
  They don't have to tell us what they do. They just have to tell us why they have so many obvious fuckups of gigantic proportions. If I were them, I'd be glad to tell us what great things they have done. Haven't seen any.
5. Re:More $$$ by AHuxley · 2012-10-04 17:02 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is when the CIA "screwed up .. your life" is usually some small hot war in a distant land... Vietnam was great for drug profits and systems testing but no so good for the people who could not 'study' or 'faith' their way out of the draft.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
6. Re:More $$$ by gl4ss · 2012-10-04 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  well, if every operation we know of got fucked up.
  now we know that they invested in dwave.
  leaving us with a good chance of dwave being a fuckup.
  also, when's the last time usa acted on genuinely good intel from cia and not reuters? osama slaying?
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
7. Re:More $$$ by Patent+Lover · 2012-10-05 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  I called the CIA "fuckups", which they are. The CIA had no clue about the fall of the Soviet Union, the one country they surveiled 24/7. I didn't say they were responsible for anything, just that they spent a shitload of $$$ for nothing. They are free to advertize their successes. They never do. (other than arming Bid Laden back when he only fought the Soviets).
8. Re:More $$$ by HuguesT · 2012-10-08 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  I do not mean to heap on poor CIA etc, but only 4 letters:
  9/11
Re:That's not even pocket change for either of the by Sulphur · 2012-10-04 14:18 · Score: 2

Sure wish Bezos would spend a nickle to make Amazon search actually work.
Is 13 out of 10000 tries good enough?
Re:What does quantum computing mean for developers by AdamStarks · 2012-10-04 15:45 · Score: 1

You forgot FileNotFound!
Re:That's not even pocket change for either of the by BenJCarter · 2012-10-04 15:47 · Score: 1

No kidding. When they bet a few Billion, we'll know our future robot overlord has achieved a major milestone.

--
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
Re:What is it with these public-private partnershi by Anarchduke · 2012-10-04 16:02 · Score: 1

they have a different department for starting wars.

--
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
Re:What is it with these public-private partnershi by js33 · 2012-10-04 17:03 · Score: 1

If you find Google Earth useful, thank In-Q-Tel.
I still can't get over the feeling that public money was spent for private gain, and it just isn't right in my book. If the government's intent had anything to do with getting a monetary return on investment, it would liquidate that fund, use the proceeds to pay down the debt, and let us the people decide how to invest our own money. If, on the other hand, the government's intent is to stimulate certain research, there needs to be a more ethical way to do it than giving away intellectual property monopolies to private parties for research done on the public dime.
The public is taking a lot of risk in these partnerships, and the big gains are staying in private pockets. It smells like baksheesh, and I just don't like it.
Re:What does quantum computing mean for developers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 17:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

X*(Y*2/Z-1) finishing date, but managers typically misread it as X*(Y*2/2-1), which is why deadlines are always set impossibly soon. Just to clarify, X is ten years from any starting date (3650 days). Delivered Z is antecedent penalty; a reciprocal of the sum of all previous & related technologies squared 1/((q1+q2+q3...)^2). That's why it can take millions of dollars to shorten development time by mere days; the fancy equipment budget negates the penalty of the antecedent technologies. Reinventing the wheel is when a budget of under $20 results in a "yesterday" finishing time, which is a symptom of a project delivering last-age tech (stone,bronze,steel,etc.). New tools and science push the next-age, which means gradually eroding the antecedents impact. Because of how many underlying projects led to current ones this-age, there's currently a very heavy price to get anything done quickly.
Better tools and scientific knowledge need to become ubiquitous, or else the cost of pushing technology forward grows ridiculous, it's burden becomes too high and new advancement stagnates.
Re:It isnt a bet by cobraR478 · 2012-10-04 18:40 · Score: 1

An investment can be a positive sum game for society. A bet is zero sum game. They are inherently different. Can you, inidividually, lose your shirt in both cases? Definitely yes. However, people investing in other people's ideas, inventions, business models, etc. is a significant part of the reason why you and I are able to have this exchange over the internet today. Gambling isn't capable of such an amazing feat.
A test of faith by slew · 2012-10-04 19:46 · Score: 1

Perhaps this investment is a true test of faith in quantum mechanics. If you are pretty sure the probability that this company will succeed is non-zero, then perhaps in one universe this investment will pay off. Even if in this universe, the investment goes belly up, in another universe, you will be rich. Maybe then you can live vicarously in that knowlege... If you are true believer, that is ;^)
"many complex problems"? Yeah right. by White+Flame · 2012-10-04 20:00 · Score: 1

They only have 1 complex problem they're trying to pursue; breaking crypto systems.
Re:Products are shipping! by gl4ss · 2012-10-04 20:32 · Score: 1

In fact, I have one of their systems right here, still sealed in its box. On the box is a sticker, "this box contains a quantum computer. Once the box is opened and you look inside, it may either be there, or not be there".
Oh wait, that scheme doesn't work anymore...
well. their products are shipping.
nobody seems to be any good at explaining why they're worth the money though, like providing a classical problem that gets solved by them better than a 2k pc.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:missed the bus by wonkey_monkey · 2012-10-04 20:39 · Score: 1

Sorry, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. You're decrying quantum computing as useless because we can only feed data into it at a finite speed, which may or not cause a bottleneck?

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:What does quantum computing mean for developers by root_42 · 2012-10-04 21:11 · Score: 1

Nah, more like "True", "False" and "CowboyNeal".

--
[--- PGP key and more on http://www.root42.de ---]
Re:"many complex problems"? Yeah right. by Magada · 2012-10-04 23:01 · Score: 1

Two at least. Their attention-deficit problem is at least as stringent.

--
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
Scott Aaronson's comments by braindrainbahrain · 2012-10-04 23:12 · Score: 1

Anyone interested in D-wave owes it to themselves to read up on the many blog posts written byScott Aaronson on the subject. I'll leave it up to the readers to challenge or assert his observations, none-the-less, they are a good read on this subject.
Lulz.. by RightSaidFred99 · 2012-10-05 10:04 · Score: 1

Goes to show you even the CIA and Bezos can be scammed by snake oil salesmen.