3 ms·
The thing is, the hardware doesn’t do anything useful. So you can in theory fake bad results… but that doesn’t seem so dangerous. If it’s bad, there are few peo
by reikonomusha 5y ago
The thing is, the hardware doesn’t do anything useful. So you can in theory fake bad results… but that doesn’t seem so dangerous. If it’s bad, there are few people to defraud, except maybe investors that are bad at due diligence.
You can also try to fake good results (or even have truly good results!), and trust me, the scientific community will require unambiguous proof. DWave went through the wringer pretty thoroughly some years ago for their claims.
There’s another angle too: If the service actually does something commercially useful or better, in some sense, it might not matter what the specifics of the implementation are. Ultimately customers are going to look at price and performance and make decisions that way.
- leoc 5y agoIt might not matter commercially, but it certainly matters from a scientific POV.
- reikonomusha 5y agoThe scientific stakeholders aren’t proving themselves with an opaque public cloud API. They’re writing detailed research papers with data that go into peer reviewed journals. The data is pretty profoundly scrutinized by the community. If a scientist or company that purportedly does science doesn't do that, they’re not taken seriously by other members of the scientific community. No one is truly believed at face value. I don’t see any significant probability of bamboozling the community of scientists through abject fraud. And there hasn’t been any such issue yet. (There have been retracted published claims, but the retractions happened as a result of scientific scrutiny.)