3 ms·
I am not incredulous and neither, I believe, is the article's author. You are arguing besides the point. This is not about you or D-wave. Instead it is like th
by prof-dr-ir 5y ago
I am not incredulous and neither, I believe, is the article's author. You are arguing besides the point.
This is not about you or D-wave. Instead it is like there is a shop with so little supervision that every customer has to be trusted to not steal things. So if a customer asks: "What can I do to convince the world that I am not stealing?" then the answer is clear: you either show your shopping bag to everyone in the world, or we need an entirely different kind of shop.
The point of this part of the article is that, for quantum computing, there is an equivalent structural problem. Until it is absolutely manifest that quantum computers do useful things that classical computers cannot, the potential for fraud remains real.
- zenron 5y agoCouldn't you say the same thing about conventional CPU's and the ability to create RNG's before ERATA show up by the vendor or found by groups doing deep dives on how correct the hardware RNG is? Or any other issue in a mainstream CPU? It isn't like we've not seen bugs show up in hardware and software pertaining to RNGs or other types of math related issues. Why should we not give the same benefit of the doubt to Quantum compute services by credible compute providers? You should know you are in for a 'as correct as we currently understand it' system provided to you. That has been the case for decades. This all reminds me when the Pentium 1 FDIV defect showed up. Today, however, we've abstracted that to compute hosting providers and we have less tech to qualify our results against.
- mikewave 5y ago> you either show your shopping bag to everyone in the world Well, that's what patents are for, right? https://patents.justia.com/assignee/d-wave-systems-inc https://patents.justia.com/assignee/d-wave-systems-inc