4 ms·
So long as they talk about the number of “qubits” their machines have without prominently clarifying that they're using a heterodox definition of “qubit” and “q
by cwillu 2y ago
So long as they talk about the number of “qubits” their machines have without prominently clarifying that they're using a heterodox definition of “qubit” and “quantum computer”, I will continue to maintain that nothing has changed.
- boothby 2y agoThere is nothing heterodox about calling our qubits qubits, nor are our qubit counts deceptive. The limitation is on the algorithms that can be performed on our systems; something that we're extremely clear about in our publications. We describe our systems as adiabatic quantum computers, explicitly calling out the difference between our current products and gate-model quantum computers. And, despite not being explicitly designed for gate-model operation, we've recently observed Bell violations using novel control protocols. This wouldn't be possible without "orthodox" qubits. So whatever your beef is, the critique you've leveled at us above is inaccurate to the point of being misleading.