21–30 of 149 posts
If IBM can cast doubt by describing a 2.5 day classical run, why not just do that instead, and blow the claim out of the water?
There were a couple of responses (thanks) but I still don't understand - it looks like it's not as easy as they imply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IBM's response to Google called "On 'Quantum Supremacy'" has this to say: "Because the original meaning of the term “quantum supremacy,” as proposed by John Preskill in 2012, was to describe the point where quantum computers can do things that classical computers can’t, this threshold has not been met." In other words, "quantum supremacy" is not being used as just a buzzword. So yeah, IBM is casting doubt on Google's…
But it's still pretty fuzzy. If we agree that 10,000 years on a classical system is supremacy but 2.5 years isn't, where's the cutoff? 25 years? 250? An average human lifespan? Edit: Thanks guys for pointing out where I misread the article, leaving mistake intact so the replies make sense.
A still fuzzy and arbitrary but imo somewhat elegant cutoff would let feasibility be set by the market and technological development, in the sense of something not being worth throwing compute at _now_ because the timescale of work is slow enough that future classical efficiencies will progress (much) quicker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> IBM's researchers argue that the term "supremacy" is in danger of being misunderstood by those outside the rarefied world of quantum geeks. Supremacy means exactly what it's supposed to mean for everyone outside and inside of science. What's the next step, google can't call its pixels "Just Black and Clearly White" because people would be confused about if it is racist or not... The world truly is becoming a weirde…
Edit: I am definitely wrong about my interpretation (see child post by DashAnimal) ____ Original comment for reference: I really don't think IBM implied the social (and definitely modern, circumstancial) figurative meaning of supremacy. Any tech geek, or history major for that matter, would just read it as "crushing domination", with a strong implication that others won't be able to catch up, ever. You know, like Kin…
> 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-suprem...
Saying that it evokes "white supremecy" is kind of a pathetic move.
Well the word creeps me out and I wish they would choose another. It isn’t even the right word to use since the intended meaning is a quantum computer that can do something that a classic computer can’t do at all, not just better at it. Quantum Possible sounds better to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IBM's response to Google called "On 'Quantum Supremacy'" has this to say: "Because the original meaning of the term “quantum supremacy,” as proposed by John Preskill in 2012, was to describe the point where quantum computers can do things that classical computers can’t, this threshold has not been met." In other words, "quantum supremacy" is not being used as just a buzzword. So yeah, IBM is casting doubt on Google's…
But it's still pretty fuzzy. If we agree that 10,000 years on a classical system is supremacy but 2.5 years isn't, where's the cutoff? 25 years? 250? An average human lifespan? Edit: Thanks guys for pointing out where I misread the article, leaving mistake intact so the replies make sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Edit: I am definitely wrong about my interpretation (see child post by DashAnimal) ____ Original comment for reference: I really don't think IBM implied the social (and definitely modern, circumstancial) figurative meaning of supremacy. Any tech geek, or history major for that matter, would just read it as "crushing domination", with a strong implication that others won't be able to catch up, ever. You know, like Kin…
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…
Saying that it evokes "white supremecy" is kind of a pathetic move.
Well the word creeps me out and I wish they would choose another. It isn’t even the right word to use since the intended meaning is a quantum computer that can do something that a classic computer can’t do at all, not just better at it. Quantum Possible sounds better to me.
No, that's exactly what it means in Googles research. It means it can do it faster than a classical computer, not that it's impossible for a classical computer to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do you see anything like that in the article?
It's in their actual response: https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/10/on-quantum-suprem... > It is well known in the quantum community that we at IBM are concerned of where the term “quantum supremacy” has gone. The origins of the term, including both a reasoned defense and a candid reflection on some of its controversial dimensions, were recently discussed by John Preskill in a thoughtful article in Quanta Magaz…