> however, despite other interesting finds in the paper (such as being able to collapse state and read output from multiple qubits at once), claiming quantum su

> however, despite other interesting finds in the paper (such as being able to collapse state and read output from multiple qubits at once), claiming quantum supremacy feels to me to be somewhat aggrandising and disingenuous, given what the quantum circuit was actually computing As the person says, they have been out of the field. For better or for worse, this is the term the field settled on years ago to mean showing that a quantum computer can sample from the Porter-Thomas distribution more quickly than a classical computer, “beyond reasonable doubt.” (What I mean by the last bit is that it must be an empirical demonstration that matches the very well established theory.) It’s maybe worth repeating: “Quantum supremacy” isn’t some gimmick made up by the authors of this paper. It was used as early as 2012 [0] by John Preskill, a well known scientist in the field. It has well-defined meaning in the research community: a specific experimental verification of a mathematical result which shows plausible rejection of the extended Church-Turing thesis. This result may not seem like much to the average reader, but—provided it passes the muster of peer review—it’s a huge step of progress in the development of quantum computers. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5813 https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5813