4 ms·

This is a common fallacy. The US government is not that great at decision making actually. Mistakes abound and not just tiny mistakes but mistakes that consiste

This is a common fallacy. The US government is not that great at decision making actually. Mistakes abound and not just tiny mistakes but mistakes that consistently cost billions. The history of the fighter jet program is quite interesting in that regard. The healthcare.gov debacle is another recent example. I mean this isn't a ding against the government. Any large enough organization is terrible at making good decisions consistently. So just because the government and some other high profile people have invested in d-wave doesn't lend them any more credibility in my opinion. The other high profile guys I'm assuming you mean are Google and IBM. It would be interesting to know how d-wave "quantum computers" have actually made any kind of dent in their respective companies other than pure marketing hype so that they can say they have "quantum computers".

gumby 10y ago
It's perfectly reasonable for a large organization like some part of the USG or Google or IBM to simply buy one to see what it's like. If there actually is a there there (perhaps even one not known to the developers) they can learn something. And if there's something real (even if not useful) they can gain a leg up on users of the next generation system, perhaps from a different company who actually does know what they're doing. And if it is a flop, well, the marginal cost is pretty minor. When I was at MIT we bought all sorts of crazy things some of which turned out to be useful in unexpected ways once you actually had the equipment in your hands. A good example of this was the EmDrive which really seemed like a scam to me but might have a there there. I wouldn't have believed it at all except that NASA, a seemingly independent organization where this is concerned, saw enough that it's apparently worth looking further. If it had been the 100% scam I assumed (and that's still not clear) I'd still be OK with the money spent. At the moment I still don't believe D-Wave and dinnertime discussions with friends at Google have not caused me to change my opinion.
- dkarapetyan 10y ago
  That's fine. I don't disagree with that approach. What I find faulty is the incorrect reasoning applied based on that behavior. It is suspiciously close to appealing to authority type of argument. Just because a large organization takes a chance on something doesn't mean there was actual planning involved in the process other than as you said "let's just see how this pans out".
- im4w1l 10y ago
  If they actually made that policy, that they will buy any <500k widget that promises the world, then I bet the market could churn out pseudoscience at astonishing rates.
  - dkarapetyan 10y ago
    The market already churns out an astonishing amount of pseudoscience. You don't need any special policies from big corporations for that. Magical thinking is one of those human things that seems to be deeply ingrained and requires sustained effort, practice, and training to avoid. Science and scientific thinking does not happen on its own. No one is born a scientist.

gumby 10y ago

It's perfectly reasonable for a large organization like some part of the USG or Google or IBM to simply buy one to see what it's like. If there actually is a there there (perhaps even one not known to the developers) they can learn something. And if there's something real (even if not useful) they can gain a leg up on users of the next generation system, perhaps from a different company who actually does know what they're doing. And if it is a flop, well, the marginal cost is pretty minor. When I was at MIT we bought all sorts of crazy things some of which turned out to be useful in unexpected ways once you actually had the equipment in your hands. A good example of this was the EmDrive which really seemed like a scam to me but might have a there there. I wouldn't have believed it at all except that NASA, a seemingly independent organization where this is concerned, saw enough that it's apparently worth looking further. If it had been the 100% scam I assumed (and that's still not clear) I'd still be OK with the money spent. At the moment I still don't believe D-Wave and dinnertime discussions with friends at Google have not caused me to change my opinion.

dkarapetyan 10y ago
That's fine. I don't disagree with that approach. What I find faulty is the incorrect reasoning applied based on that behavior. It is suspiciously close to appealing to authority type of argument. Just because a large organization takes a chance on something doesn't mean there was actual planning involved in the process other than as you said "let's just see how this pans out".
im4w1l 10y ago
If they actually made that policy, that they will buy any <500k widget that promises the world, then I bet the market could churn out pseudoscience at astonishing rates.
- dkarapetyan 10y ago
  The market already churns out an astonishing amount of pseudoscience. You don't need any special policies from big corporations for that. Magical thinking is one of those human things that seems to be deeply ingrained and requires sustained effort, practice, and training to avoid. Science and scientific thinking does not happen on its own. No one is born a scientist.