Isn't Google's result published in Nature -- a peer reviewed journal? Shouldn't IBM just do the same with their refutation?
IBM casts doubt on Google's claims of quantum supremacy
81–90 of 149 posts
Re: IBM casts doubt on Google's claims of quantum supremacy
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if the calibration process "cheats", why should we care? It's not like being practical is the goal. After the calibration is done, you still have a device that can do something believed intractable on classical computers. If it is possible for a classical computer to get comparable results just from a long calibration process, then that means the cross entropy test is flawed/limited, which is a separate argument…
If you're going to allow cheating on calibration then it's trivial to achieve "quantum supremacy": simply precompute the answer and call that "calibration"!
There's no "answer" to precalculate, it's drawing from a distribution. Could you calibrate a non-quantum circuit to have a distribution passing the test? Supposedly, this is not possible even given arbitrary pre-computation time.
Re: IBM casts doubt on Google's claims of quantum supremacy
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're going to allow cheating on calibration then it's trivial to achieve "quantum supremacy": simply precompute the answer and call that "calibration"!
There's no "answer" to precalculate, it's drawing from a distribution. Could you calibrate a non-quantum circuit to have a distribution passing the test? Supposedly, this is not possible even given arbitrary pre-computation time.
I can pre-calculate as many samples from the distribution as you can generate during the coherence time of the QC. Once you lose coherence, you have to re-calibrate, and during that time I can pre-compute another set of samples.
Re: IBM casts doubt on Google's claims of quantum supremacy
#84[deleted]
Re: IBM casts doubt on Google's claims of quantum supremacy
#85Seeing this be published on Science Magazine is interesting by itself.
Its like IBM and Google at a high level work on different problems. IBM is focused on research and public discussion of the problem space. Google on the other hand is focusing on marketing using fancy terms like "supremecy" that can easily be misunderstood by the public.
Re: IBM casts doubt on Google's claims of quantum supremacy
#86Isn't Google's result published in Nature -- a peer reviewed journal? Shouldn't IBM just do the same with their refutation?
I am sure this exact rebuttal is already sent to Nature and under review and will be published in the next issue.
Re: IBM casts doubt on Google's claims of quantum supremacy
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that goes for any raw benchmarking, it’s busywork by design.
I'm pretty cynical about this specific experiment, but that's taking it to another level. The ROI was terrible, but it wasn't mere busywork when Galileo was mucking around with balls and ramps.
Haha sorry should've been much clearer, I meant specifically computer power benchmarking.
You perform busywork, if for marketing purposes usually of the kind or at least set up in a way favorable to your product, and on the presumption that it will in some manner transfer to real work.
The more synthetic the less likely that is, but it's still indicative of something and I don't see what you mean is so different here.
Re: IBM casts doubt on Google's claims of quantum supremacy
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no "answer" to precalculate, it's drawing from a distribution. Could you calibrate a non-quantum circuit to have a distribution passing the test? Supposedly, this is not possible even given arbitrary pre-computation time.
I can pre-calculate as many samples from the distribution as you can generate during the coherence time of the QC. Once you lose coherence, you have to re-calibrate, and during that time I can pre-compute another set of samples.
That's true, if you pre-sample you can beat the test. Is that the effect you think the calibration is having?
> Once you lose coherence, you have to re-calibrate
I didn't realize this, where did you see that?
Re: IBM casts doubt on Google's claims of quantum supremacy
#89If a worst case to simulate on a classical computer is 2.5 days (per IBM's blog) then they should either:
1. Actually preform the experiment per their approach, compare the results, and provide tangible proof in the coming days.
or
2. Retract their claims.
In either case, exciting times ahead.
[Edit: Yes, I read their published paper[1] which only claims it is possible to achieve and does not perform the same experiment.
Re: IBM casts doubt on Google's claims of quantum supremacy
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such a demonstration would prove nothing of importance, partly because the issue is not how fast a particular run takes, but how running time grows with the size of the problem. More significantly, the issue is whether the paper's argument for its original claim is sound, and that would be best addressed by showing where it goes wrong. For a brief and clear explanation, read this excellent post: https://news.ycombina…
I'm sure you didn't intend snark, but no need for the tone - that's a new post and not a response to my original question. Thank you for the link to a potential explanation.
My apologies for the tone. I should have said that the best route to understanding the issue is probably via the linked post - it worked for me.