3 ms·

The results are not just a bit misleading, they're incredibly misleading and a downright lie. See eg: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400 http://www.scott

The results are not just a bit misleading, they're incredibly misleading and a downright lie. See eg: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400 http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400 ""CPLEX is a general-purpose, off-the-shelf exact optimization package. Of course an exact solver can’t compete against quantum annealing—or for that matter, against classical annealing or other classical heuristics! """ DWave is snake oil in the worst possible way.

DrizztVD 11y ago
This is BS. It's really easy to shoot down a new technology in its second iteration by comparing it with the gazillionth iteration of super-duper-optimised older technology. So what if CPLEX is this and this, it's still running on a platform that has had multiple Billions of dollars poured into it to optimize and improve it. What do you think will a QC be capable of when it has had a similar investment in R&D - I beg to ask of you?? The truth is, classical computers are reaching their zenith. Those who stubbornly denounce new technologies based on such a truly horrific comparison such as what we have here are doomed to be clutching their 8 core beast of yesteryear, sulking as the part of the world that is willing to adapt and change move past them at a rapid pace. I can promise you there were many similar arguments such as this when radio technology, TV broadcasting, computer technology, and LCDs first came about. Sure, people can argue against a new technology based on the underlying fundamental principles of the technology, but saying a new technology is stupid because it's not as good (yet!) as the current technology is the worst argument in human history. Using your argument I can say that Albert Einstein is definitely the most stupid person that ever lived - because look, as a 3-year-old he was useless. The argument forgets that a three year old Einstein is a much different person than a 23-year-old Einstein. A 23-year-old quantum computer will be a much different thing than a three-year-old quantum computer!
- BrainInAJar 11y ago
  Read the article. Aaronson is in fact arguing against a new technology based on the fundamental principles of the technology. DWave is not a quantum computer, they aren't even a quantum annealing computer. They (probably, but not certainly) exploit a very particular effect to optimize a very particular problem. It cannot run Shor's or Grover's, and it never will be able to.

DrizztVD 11y ago

This is BS. It's really easy to shoot down a new technology in its second iteration by comparing it with the gazillionth iteration of super-duper-optimised older technology. So what if CPLEX is this and this, it's still running on a platform that has had multiple Billions of dollars poured into it to optimize and improve it. What do you think will a QC be capable of when it has had a similar investment in R&D - I beg to ask of you?? The truth is, classical computers are reaching their zenith. Those who stubbornly denounce new technologies based on such a truly horrific comparison such as what we have here are doomed to be clutching their 8 core beast of yesteryear, sulking as the part of the world that is willing to adapt and change move past them at a rapid pace. I can promise you there were many similar arguments such as this when radio technology, TV broadcasting, computer technology, and LCDs first came about. Sure, people can argue against a new technology based on the underlying fundamental principles of the technology, but saying a new technology is stupid because it's not as good (yet!) as the current technology is the worst argument in human history. Using your argument I can say that Albert Einstein is definitely the most stupid person that ever lived - because look, as a 3-year-old he was useless. The argument forgets that a three year old Einstein is a much different person than a 23-year-old Einstein. A 23-year-old quantum computer will be a much different thing than a three-year-old quantum computer!

BrainInAJar 11y ago
Read the article. Aaronson is in fact arguing against a new technology based on the fundamental principles of the technology. DWave is not a quantum computer, they aren't even a quantum annealing computer. They (probably, but not certainly) exploit a very particular effect to optimize a very particular problem. It cannot run Shor's or Grover's, and it never will be able to.