Fox News Breaking News Alert

Fox News Breaking News Alert

Dozens of Republicans stormed a closed-door House session in a bid to call attention to transparency concerns in Trump impeachme

10/23/19 10:04 AM

New story in Technology from Time: Google Has Achieved ‘Quantum Supremacy.’ Just What the Heck Is That?

Here’s a quick bit of topical multiple choice: What is “quantum supremacy?” a) The next blockbuster film in the James Bond series, coming to theaters in the summer of 2020. b) The greatest name for an expansion sports team in all of history. c) Something just achieved by a computer built by one of the world’s biggest and post powerful companies (Hint: it starts with a G and ends with an oogle) and you should be very afraid.

If you answered c, you’re correct — except for the very afraid part. The fact is, quantum supremacy — a term that is burning down the Internet today — is really just an exceedingly fancy way of saying a super-duper kind of computer, one that not only operates on quantum principles, but masters them so deftly that it actually outperforms a traditional computer. (That’s where the “supremacy” part comes from.)

Traditional silicon computers like the one you might be using to read this rely on chips that encode data in one of two states: 1 or 0. Gathered up and organized by the millions, billions and trillions, all those 1’s and 0’s take on meaning in the same way that the 8.3 million pixels in a 4K TV screen, or the who-know-how-many dots in a pointillist painting like George Seraut’s masterpiece Sunday on La Grande Jatte, create a picture.

But 1’s and 0’s are, by definition, binary things — they are one or the other, but they can’t be both. The quantum world exists on a different plane entirely. It is quantum science that allows the question “Is Schrödinger’s cat dead or alive?” to be answered, “Yes.” Ask a quantum scientist if an electron fired at a screen with two slits in it passed through the left slit or the right one, and the answer is likely to be “You bet!” That’s because in the land of the quantum, all things can exist in multiple states at the same time. (The exception: once you observe them, they may flip to one state or the other—which is why if you go to Schrödinger’s house you should not look at his cat because you may kill it in the process and then he’ll get mad.)

A computer built with quantum chips encodes information not in bits, but in qubits — which, as with traditional computers, can exist in the 1 or 0 position, but also the superposition of 1 and zero. To look at a qubit chip is not to see anything special — it looks like an ordinary computer chip, except it relies on particles like ions, photons or electrons, as opposed to simple silicon, interacting in a superconducting, super-cooled state.

The Google computer, known as Sycamore, made the headlines it’s making today by doing nothing terribly important on its own: analyzing a random number generator and confirming that it was indeed working randomly. Nothing to see here, really. But the achievement was deemed worthy of publication in the esteemed journal Nature, as well as in a more readable, less technical Nature explainer titled, with uncharacteristic giddiness, “Hello, Quantum World!”

What makes Google’s accomplishment worthy of the hoopla was, for starters, speed: The Sycamore computer solved the random-number problem in just 200 seconds. Even the most powerful traditional supercomputer would require a somewhat pokier 10,000 years — give or take a century — to achieve the same feat.

More important was the way Google’s quantum computer did its work. When a traditional binary computer tells you that the answer to an equation is, say, 4, that means it is 4. If a quantum computer tells you the same thing, that means the answer is 4 — unless it is 73 or 126 or all of them at once. The quantum computer solves that problem by running the calculation millions of times simultaneously, looking for a so-called probability distribution, which analyzes all of the answers and ultimately discerns the right one. The Nature paper (the fun one) helpfully compares the process to rolling a pair of loaded dice. At first you can’t tell that they’re rigged, but roll them a few thousand or million or billion times and you recognize that 7 or 11 come up far more often than they should. In that discovery lies your answer.

Google does not pretend that Sycamore is remotely ready for prime time. There is far more refinement to come before it has truly practical applications—though even this first random-number result can have value in cryptography. And competitor IBM, in a skeptical blog post, argued that a conventional computer with enough storage space could solve the same problem Sycamore did in just 2.5 days, which is a lot more than 300 seconds, though admittedly a lot less than 10,000 years.

Either way, there’s no denying that a hinge-point in computer history has been turned. Despite the Nature story’s “Hello!” headline, the fact is, the quantum world has always existed. The news — the huge news — is that now we’ve arrived there, too.

Fox News Breaking News Alert

Fox News Breaking News Alert

President Trump announces 'permanent' cease-fire on Syria-Turkey border, end to sanctions on Ankara

10/23/19 8:45 AM

New story in Technology from Time: Google Says it Has Achieved ‘Quantum Supremacy,’ a Major Tech Milestone

Google said it has built a computer that’s reached “quantum supremacy,” performing a computation in 200 seconds that would take the fastest supercomputers about 10,000 years.

The results of Google’s tests, which were conducted using a quantum chip it developed in-house, were published Wednesday in the scientific journal Nature.

“This achievement is the result of years of research and the dedication of many people,” Google engineering director Hartmut Neven said in a blog post. “It’s also the beginning of a new journey: figuring out how to put this technology to work. We’re working with the research community and have open-sourced tools to enable others to work alongside us to identify new applications.”

The idea behind quantum computing is to exponentially improve the processing speed and power of computers to be able to simulate large systems, driving advances in physics, chemistry and other fields. Rather than storing information in binary 0s or 1s like classical computers, quantum computers rely on “qubits”, which can be both 0 and 1 simultaneously, dramatically increasing the amount of information that can be encoded.

But, much like advancements in artificial intelligence, there’s a lot of debate about what constitutes a real breakthrough. Researchers at International Business Machines Corp. said in a blog this week that a simulation of the same task Google used could be done in 2.5 days on a classical computer with enough hard drive storage, not 10,000 years. If quantum supremacy means doing something classical computers can’t, this isn’t it, they wrote.

While the world’s biggest tech companies are racing to develop a quantum computer that passes the scrutiny of academics, some products are commercially available already. In 2011, Canada’s D-Wave Systems Inc. became the first company to sell such a product to businesses and government labs, although unlike machines being built by rivals, its usefulness is limited as the hardware can’t solve any kind of mathematical problem.

A number of other companies — including IBM, Google, Microsoft Corp., and California-based startup Rigetti Computing — are pushing to create more powerful machines that businesses can use. They’ve also made some of their technology available for researchers to experiment with via the internet.

Fox News Breaking News Alert

Fox News Breaking News Alert

39 bodies discovered in truck container in southeast England, suspect arrested

10/23/19 2:17 AM

Fox News Breaking News Alert

Fox News Breaking News Alert

Hong Kong formally withdraws extradition bill

10/23/19 12:45 AM

New story in Technology from Time: Annie Leibovitz on the Democratization of Photography, Her Influences and Her Google Pixel Campaign

Annie Leibovitz, who has been photographing the world’s most influential figures for the past 49 years, revealed last week a new campaign called “Face Forward” shot exclusively on the Google Pixel smartphone. The new series done in partnership with Google features portraits of James Turrell, Megan Rapino, Chase Strangio, and others. “Face Forward” has been in the works for over a year as a project to document the stories of some of the most prominent changemakers today. “It’s an incredible opportunity for us to celebrate people in the present who are doing things to create a better future,” journalist and activist Noor Tagouri, who was photographed for the campaign, tells TIME.

Leibovitz, who helped in the development phases of the camera in the new Google Pixel, is far from new in working with high-profile figures and successfully capturing their stories, but “Face Forward” is her first series shot entirely on smartphone. The photographer says she was “suspicious” when working with an older version of the smartphone at first but felt impressed by it this time.

Here’s what Leibovitz had to say about her new campaign and what the democratization of photography means today.

How did you choose the subjects for this campaign?

Originally I thought I was just going to drive across the country and meet people, like Robert Frank. We got more realistic about time and zeroed in on people who are taking things very head-on and were important in their worlds, giving us hope in our world. I went back to some original sources, like Gloria Steinem, and asked her for lists. Some of the Native American subjects came from Gloria Steinem, and then we just did our due diligence, looking at every list of people who mattered and were doing things.

What do you hope sharing these portraits will accomplish or what feelings do you want them to spark in a viewer?

I think what we’re trying to do is recognize these people as people who are setting a tone and setting standards. I remember going out to photograph Bobbi Jean Three Legs at Standing Rock Reservation where she has worked so hard to protest the pipeline, and you get out to her land and you’re really brought to your knees when you see the beauty of this country. In that photograph, we’re standing on the edge of the Missouri River, and you realize her love for her land and her reservation.

How do you think this project fits into your work?

It fits in perfectly. I don’t get a chance to always do this kind of work. Vogue has always been politically conscious. We just did Congresswoman McBath, whose son was killed through gun violence, and I just did Nancy Pelosi for Vanity Fair. At this point in my life, I try to direct my work a little better, but I think this is really the time for this type of work.

The campaign is meant “to find a new way to document individuals making change in the world today.” Why is it important document change today?

I feel I am not unique in this respect; we all want to care and know about people who are doing the right things so we can have a sense of hope. The state of this country and our government today has brought out in every which way the most extraordinary, incredible people who care about who we are, what we’re doing, and what matters.

© Annie Leibovitz. From Annie Leibovitz: Face ForwardBryan Stevenson

What is the role of photographs in making change today?

Photographs have never been better. I admire The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Time. Photojournalism has never been better. We’ve been relentless, and we have to be relentless to get things moved along. I find the portrait very powerful when it’s done well. In this particular set of pictures, there are two pictures that create the person–there’s a portrait of the person and then there’s something else that is in their life. With Bryan Stevenson, his great, great grandparents were slaves, and this other photo alongside his portrait is in a plantation outside of Montgomery, Alabama. You can see the slave quarters, and there’s this tree, which you can draw your own conclusions on. It’s a brief photo story.

Did any recent events, in particular, prompt you to work on a series centered around social changemakers?

I’ve always been interested in politics, from my early years at Rolling Stone and being on the road with Hunter S. Thompson. I’ve always been interested in social commentary, being on the road with Tom Wolfe. Today, it’s not one event, since this president has been in office, every single day something terrible, horrible comes up. I was trying to do this interview without having to bring him up.

How do you avoid glamour in your photos, making them more personal and intimate rather?

I like people to look like themselves. I do do work for Vogue, and sometimes I get a little frustrated, but they kind of know they’re not going to get the normal fashion picture. I started off as a fine art photographer, and I went to the San Francisco Art Institute. The photographers I admired were Robert Frank and Henri Cartier-Bresson and personalized reportage. When I first started working for Rolling Stone, I wondered if it was possible to work in a commercial landscape and take good pictures. I found that most of the really good photographers at school weren’t interested in something like Rolling Stone, but I found that in the commercial landscape of magazine work or doing something like this for Google, you can make something of it. You shouldn’t be shy to step into it to try to do something that is meaningful and goes to another place. You’re being given a space in a landscape to use and not abuse. Use it! When Google gave it to me they basically said ‘what do you want to do,’ and I thought of what I don’t get to do, and that’s what I did.

This campaign was shot exclusively on smartphone. How do you think the increased accessibility of the medium of photography is a positive thing?

Anything that makes photography easier is a good thing. The first photographers had to be scientists and chemists. I was brought up with going to the dark room and seeing the image show up in the pan. It was so romantic and magic, pure magic. It’s a new time now. There’s new technology, which is exciting too! I was very, very interested in trying to do a project with the camera phone because I really do believe in it, and I wanted to talk to the people who make them to maybe make them more useful for photographers. Quite honestly, using it as itself, rather than trying to make it a regular camera, I really did feel like I was gliding with it. You take pictures with your heart, your eyes, how you look, how you see and how you perceive in your mind; the equipment has very little to do with it in a way.

How much do you research or learn about a subject prior to a shoot or do you mostly learn their story along the way?

Of course you find out everything you can. I wouldn’t have found about Sarah Zorn’s boots if I didn’t learn when she was three years old she walked in her grandfather’s boots. You have to do your research.