4 ms·

Do you have a link handy? You've piqued my curiosity!

refulgentis 3y ago
Here's an exhaustive covering: https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec14.html https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec14.html I would have picked it up in bits and pieces from blogs over years, here's an attempt to render that useful that is surely nitpickable: TL;DR: there's two types of caring about Google's claims of quantum supremacy: 1. HN tends to assume these articles are about breakthrough in _product usefulness_ and then tsk tsk about lack of impact. c.f. top comment currently gravely noting after reading the paper, its too noisy and a long way off. 2. The papers are about demonstrating _there is quantum computing at all_, the interest in the people in the know is about settling that question, the raw strongman feat isn't particularly interesting.
- nier 3y ago
  From the article linked by parent: «To summarize, I think that arguing with skeptics is not only amusing but extremely useful. It could be that quantum computing is impossible for some fundamental reason. So far, though, I haven't seen an argument that's engaged me in a really nontrivial way.» «Very little of what we do in theoretical computer science is directly connected to a practical application. That's just not what we're trying to do. Of course, what we do has applications, but indirectly. We're trying to understand computation. If you take that as our goal, then it seems clear that starting from the best physical theories we have is a valuable activity. If you want to ask a different question, such as what we can do in the next five to ten years, then, that's fine. Just make it clear that's what you're doing.»
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    This shouldn't leave anyone with the impression they are cranks. Scott's claim in this lecture is he hasn't yet found making a counter argument "really nontrivial" To wit, the article names Leonid Levin and Oded Goldreich as the primary skeptics. Leonid has 10K citations, 2012 Knuth Prize, 37 h-index. Oded has 63K citations, 2017 Knuth Prize, 95 h-index. What Scott Aaronson considers "really nontrivial" is far beyond our comprehension, and he's making a claim about synthesizing an counterargument, not settling the entire argument.

Here's an exhaustive covering: https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec14.html https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec14.html I would have picked it up in bits and pieces from blogs over years, here's an attempt to render that useful that is surely nitpickable: TL;DR: there's two types of caring about Google's claims of quantum supremacy: 1. HN tends to assume these articles are about breakthrough in _product usefulness_ and then tsk tsk about lack of impact. c.f. top comment currently gravely noting after reading the paper, its too noisy and a long way off. 2. The papers are about demonstrating _there is quantum computing at all_, the interest in the people in the know is about settling that question, the raw strongman feat isn't particularly interesting.

nier 3y ago
From the article linked by parent: «To summarize, I think that arguing with skeptics is not only amusing but extremely useful. It could be that quantum computing is impossible for some fundamental reason. So far, though, I haven't seen an argument that's engaged me in a really nontrivial way.» «Very little of what we do in theoretical computer science is directly connected to a practical application. That's just not what we're trying to do. Of course, what we do has applications, but indirectly. We're trying to understand computation. If you take that as our goal, then it seems clear that starting from the best physical theories we have is a valuable activity. If you want to ask a different question, such as what we can do in the next five to ten years, then, that's fine. Just make it clear that's what you're doing.»
- refulgentis 3y ago
  This shouldn't leave anyone with the impression they are cranks. Scott's claim in this lecture is he hasn't yet found making a counter argument "really nontrivial" To wit, the article names Leonid Levin and Oded Goldreich as the primary skeptics. Leonid has 10K citations, 2012 Knuth Prize, 37 h-index. Oded has 63K citations, 2017 Knuth Prize, 95 h-index. What Scott Aaronson considers "really nontrivial" is far beyond our comprehension, and he's making a claim about synthesizing an counterargument, not settling the entire argument.