4 ms·

Saying that it evokes "white supremecy" is kind of a pathetic move.

lm28469 7y ago
> IBM's researchers argue that the term "supremacy" is in danger of being misunderstood by those outside the rarefied world of quantum geeks. Supremacy means exactly what it's supposed to mean for everyone outside and inside of science. What's the next step, google can't call its pixels "Just Black and Clearly White" because people would be confused about if it is racist or not... The world truly is becoming a weirder place by the minute.
- fourthark 7y ago
  Or a more boring place as our language shrinks.
- K0SM0S 7y ago
  Edit: I am definitely wrong about my interpretation (see child post by DashAnimal) ____ Original comment for reference: I really don't think IBM implied the social (and definitely modern, circumstancial) figurative meaning of supremacy. Any tech geek, or history major for that matter, would just read it as "crushing domination", with a strong implication that others won't be able to catch up, ever. You know, like Kings and Empires impose their supremacy on other, lesser powers. In that sense, the expression "quantum supremacy" (QS) is indeed ambiguous insofar as: - it's a convention, a simple "we agree to say that QS means <mathematical definition>" (not a very clear one at that, the concept lacks boundaries). - "supremacy" in QS refers to "quantum", i.e. it's the domination of Q computers versus classic computers; and absolutely not that of the company behind the tech —a recent history of the Fortune 500 makes it emphatically clear that there is no such thing as definitive supremacy for companies. In fact, a certain IBM... [snip] Big blue is apparently vexed, here; but disingenuous linguistically? Not so much in my opinion. More like downplaying —that is their pettiness if you ask me: why not salute the engineering feat, and look at yourself asking "OK guys, how do we win the next step?" In other words, play it fair.
  - DashAnimal 7y ago
    No, they definitely did. In the original blog: > Professor Preskill summarized the two main objections to the term that have arisen from the community by explaining that the “word exacerbates the already overhyped reporting on the status of quantum technology” and that “through its association with white supremacy, evokes a repugnant political stance.” > Both are sensible objections. And we would further add... https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/10/on-quantum-supremacy/ https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/10/on-quantum-suprem...
    - lm28469 7y ago
      It's almost as if a word could have a different meaning depending on the other words surrounding it.
    - K0SM0S 7y ago
      Oh, my. IBM is way lower than I thought. Thank you for setting my perception straight; I amended GP accordingly. I would almost qualify that as intellectual self-subjection (and perhaps ethical, in the way of science). Aiming so low that it's trolling, for lack of a better word. Wikipedia's "Quantum supremacy"[1] article: > The term was originally popularized by John Preskill[2] but the concept of a quantum computational advantage, specifically for simulating quantum systems, dates back to Yuri Manin's (1980) and Richard Feynman's (1981) proposals of quantum computing. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy [2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5813 https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5813 (2012, in the abstract: “[...] we hope to hasten the day when well controlled quantum systems can perform tasks surpassing what can be done in the classical world. One way to achieve such "quantum supremacy" would be to run an algorithm on a quantum computer which solves a problem with a super-polynomial speedup relative to classical computers [...]”)
apawloski 7y ago
Where do you see anything like that in the article?
- Deukhoofd 7y ago
  It's in their actual response: https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/10/on-quantum-supremacy/ https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/10/on-quantum-suprem... > It is well known in the quantum community that we at IBM are concerned of where the term “quantum supremacy” has gone. The origins of the term, including both a reasoned defense and a candid reflection on some of its controversial dimensions, were recently discussed by John Preskill in a thoughtful article in Quanta Magazine. Professor Preskill summarized the two main objections to the term that have arisen from the community by explaining that the “word exacerbates the already overhyped reporting on the status of quantum technology” and that “through its association with white supremacy, evokes a repugnant political stance.” Kind of silly to say we can't use the word supreme or supremacy anymore, just because it's used for white supremacists.
  - apawloski 7y ago
    Ah. Thanks for the link.
  - smcl 7y ago
    So let's be angry at the recently emboldened white supremacist movement in the US, instead of people who are saying "yeh, kind of sucks that we have this concept that has a name clash with a racist belief that we thought had largely died decades ago" or getting mad about completely made-up ideas of not being able to say "black" or "white" (like a sibling comment did).
JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
Well the word creeps me out and I wish they would choose another. It isn’t even the right word to use since the intended meaning is a quantum computer that can do something that a classic computer can’t do at all, not just better at it. Quantum Possible sounds better to me.
- OscarCunningham 7y ago
  If given enough time, classical computers can calculate anything that quantum computers can.
- Deukhoofd 7y ago
  "It isn’t even the right word to use since the intended meaning is a quantum computer that can do something that a classic computer can’t do at all, not just better at it." No, that's exactly what it means in Googles research. It means it can do it faster than a classical computer, not that it's impossible for a classical computer to do.
  - JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy First line- "Quantum supremacy is the potential ability of quantum computing devices to solve problems that classical computers practically cannot." We can argue about what practically means but I read that as a very very long time. No one worries about someone breaking RSA-2048 with a classical computer because it is "practically" impossible. >In putting together our video, we estimated the age of the Universe to be 13,751,783,021 years or a little over 13.75 billion years*, therefore if you tried to break a DigiCert 2048-bit SSL certificate using a standard modern desktop computer, and you started at the beginning of time, you would have expended 13 billion years of processing by the time you got back to today, and you would still have to repeat that entire process 468,481 times one after the other into our far far distant future before there was a good probability of breaking the certificate. In fact the Universe itself would grow dark before you even got close. https://www.digicert.com/TimeTravel/math.htm https://www.digicert.com/TimeTravel/math.htm This may not be the case with Quantum Possible computation.
badcede 7y ago
Not as pathetic as "We at IBM are concerned of".

> IBM's researchers argue that the term "supremacy" is in danger of being misunderstood by those outside the rarefied world of quantum geeks. Supremacy means exactly what it's supposed to mean for everyone outside and inside of science. What's the next step, google can't call its pixels "Just Black and Clearly White" because people would be confused about if it is racist or not... The world truly is becoming a weirder place by the minute.

fourthark 7y ago
Or a more boring place as our language shrinks.
K0SM0S 7y ago
Edit: I am definitely wrong about my interpretation (see child post by DashAnimal) ____ Original comment for reference: I really don't think IBM implied the social (and definitely modern, circumstancial) figurative meaning of supremacy. Any tech geek, or history major for that matter, would just read it as "crushing domination", with a strong implication that others won't be able to catch up, ever. You know, like Kings and Empires impose their supremacy on other, lesser powers. In that sense, the expression "quantum supremacy" (QS) is indeed ambiguous insofar as: - it's a convention, a simple "we agree to say that QS means <mathematical definition>" (not a very clear one at that, the concept lacks boundaries). - "supremacy" in QS refers to "quantum", i.e. it's the domination of Q computers versus classic computers; and absolutely not that of the company behind the tech —a recent history of the Fortune 500 makes it emphatically clear that there is no such thing as definitive supremacy for companies. In fact, a certain IBM... [snip] Big blue is apparently vexed, here; but disingenuous linguistically? Not so much in my opinion. More like downplaying —that is their pettiness if you ask me: why not salute the engineering feat, and look at yourself asking "OK guys, how do we win the next step?" In other words, play it fair.
- DashAnimal 7y ago
  No, they definitely did. In the original blog: > Professor Preskill summarized the two main objections to the term that have arisen from the community by explaining that the “word exacerbates the already overhyped reporting on the status of quantum technology” and that “through its association with white supremacy, evokes a repugnant political stance.” > Both are sensible objections. And we would further add... https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/10/on-quantum-supremacy/ https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/10/on-quantum-suprem...
  - lm28469 7y ago
    It's almost as if a word could have a different meaning depending on the other words surrounding it.
  - K0SM0S 7y ago
    Oh, my. IBM is way lower than I thought. Thank you for setting my perception straight; I amended GP accordingly. I would almost qualify that as intellectual self-subjection (and perhaps ethical, in the way of science). Aiming so low that it's trolling, for lack of a better word. Wikipedia's "Quantum supremacy"[1] article: > The term was originally popularized by John Preskill[2] but the concept of a quantum computational advantage, specifically for simulating quantum systems, dates back to Yuri Manin's (1980) and Richard Feynman's (1981) proposals of quantum computing. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy [2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5813 https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5813 (2012, in the abstract: “[...] we hope to hasten the day when well controlled quantum systems can perform tasks surpassing what can be done in the classical world. One way to achieve such "quantum supremacy" would be to run an algorithm on a quantum computer which solves a problem with a super-polynomial speedup relative to classical computers [...]”)

apawloski 7y ago

Where do you see anything like that in the article?

Deukhoofd 7y ago
It's in their actual response: https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/10/on-quantum-supremacy/ https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/10/on-quantum-suprem... > It is well known in the quantum community that we at IBM are concerned of where the term “quantum supremacy” has gone. The origins of the term, including both a reasoned defense and a candid reflection on some of its controversial dimensions, were recently discussed by John Preskill in a thoughtful article in Quanta Magazine. Professor Preskill summarized the two main objections to the term that have arisen from the community by explaining that the “word exacerbates the already overhyped reporting on the status of quantum technology” and that “through its association with white supremacy, evokes a repugnant political stance.” Kind of silly to say we can't use the word supreme or supremacy anymore, just because it's used for white supremacists.
- apawloski 7y ago
  Ah. Thanks for the link.
- smcl 7y ago
  So let's be angry at the recently emboldened white supremacist movement in the US, instead of people who are saying "yeh, kind of sucks that we have this concept that has a name clash with a racist belief that we thought had largely died decades ago" or getting mad about completely made-up ideas of not being able to say "black" or "white" (like a sibling comment did).

JohnJamesRambo 7y ago

Well the word creeps me out and I wish they would choose another. It isn’t even the right word to use since the intended meaning is a quantum computer that can do something that a classic computer can’t do at all, not just better at it. Quantum Possible sounds better to me.

OscarCunningham 7y ago
If given enough time, classical computers can calculate anything that quantum computers can.
Deukhoofd 7y ago
"It isn’t even the right word to use since the intended meaning is a quantum computer that can do something that a classic computer can’t do at all, not just better at it." No, that's exactly what it means in Googles research. It means it can do it faster than a classical computer, not that it's impossible for a classical computer to do.
- JohnJamesRambo 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy First line- "Quantum supremacy is the potential ability of quantum computing devices to solve problems that classical computers practically cannot." We can argue about what practically means but I read that as a very very long time. No one worries about someone breaking RSA-2048 with a classical computer because it is "practically" impossible. >In putting together our video, we estimated the age of the Universe to be 13,751,783,021 years or a little over 13.75 billion years*, therefore if you tried to break a DigiCert 2048-bit SSL certificate using a standard modern desktop computer, and you started at the beginning of time, you would have expended 13 billion years of processing by the time you got back to today, and you would still have to repeat that entire process 468,481 times one after the other into our far far distant future before there was a good probability of breaking the certificate. In fact the Universe itself would grow dark before you even got close. https://www.digicert.com/TimeTravel/math.htm https://www.digicert.com/TimeTravel/math.htm This may not be the case with Quantum Possible computation.

badcede 7y ago

Not as pathetic as "We at IBM are concerned of".