3 ms·

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 expla

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 [...]”)

3 ms·

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 expla

by DashAnimal 7y ago

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 [...]”)