Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boffin claims Microsoft’s “quantum leap” is invalid due to “basic Python errors”

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 64 posts

Re: Boffin claims Microsoft’s “quantum leap” is invalid due to “basic Python errors”

#21

Post by m4gr4th34 »

jMyles wrote: post #16
frollogaston wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think research papers normally come with a simple portable way for others to rerun the calculations. At some point the code is complicated enough to be impossible to just proofread without running it.

> I don't think research papers normally come with a simple portable way for others to rerun the calculations. ...which, for situations where a readable/narrated test suite is entirely possible, is awful.

I actually created a template to make research dossiers to do exactly that on GitHub. it works, and self hosts, and has a DOI, and blockchain timestamps... I'm a quantum physicist that left academia cause it was too slow for my taste, and I think the technology is here now for open-sourcing science research.

Re: Boffin claims Microsoft’s “quantum leap” is invalid due to “basic Python errors”

#22

Post by frollogaston »

rdtsc wrote: post #8

> boffins willing to go on the record as describing Microsoft's work as "unreliable" and perhaps even "fraudulent." > Microsoft insisted its work is sound and in early June 2026 announced Majorana 2, a "next-generation topological quantum chip" it developed with the help of its own agentic AI. AI hallucinates quantum computing bullshit as well or better than humans can hallucinate quantum computing bullshit. Couldn't…

The kinds of bugs really look like human mistakes more than AI

Re: Boffin claims Microsoft’s “quantum leap” is invalid due to “basic Python errors”

#24

Post by dekhn »

frollogaston wrote: post #3

Was pleasantly surprised to see the exact bug in here, in a "The Register" article of all places. Legg showed that fixing the bug invalidates the research. Seems Microsoft is responding to a clear problem with a vague dismissal. Edit: Oh, The Register is a true tech paper, guess the name makes sense for that. Got mixed up cause there are a bunch of general papers called something Register.

The Register is a tech paper that is modelled on various British tabloids (daily mail, the sun). Sometimes it's humor, sometimes it's real news and occasionally they even break a new story.

Re: Boffin claims Microsoft’s “quantum leap” is invalid due to “basic Python errors”

#25

Post by jdw64 »

https://github.com/microsoft/azure-quantum-tgp

```

return xr.apply_ufunc(

    lambda x: (x - x[::-1]) / 2,

    conductance,

    input_core_dims=[dims],

    output_core_dims=[dims],

    vectorize=True,
) ```

Reading the article about how they filtered and cherry-picked specific regions, I got curious about the actual asymmetry computation, so I looked up the source code. Looking at it, they seem to have used memory offsets as if they were physical coordinates, but they're only looking at the array index order, not the actual values. x[::-1] isn't measuring physical coordinates; it's just reversing the array. So it seems this bias axis mentioned in the article only forms when things are symmetric. But in typical numerical computations, isn't it pretty common to reverse arrays like this? In this case, there must be a reason why the physical coordinates change. Should we be verifying invariants here? Sometimes I see people who find these kinds of issues and I think they're really amazing. Even after reading the article, tracing it, and debugging it, I kept wondering what the problem was..

Re: Boffin claims Microsoft’s “quantum leap” is invalid due to “basic Python errors”

#26

Post by frollogaston »

dekhn wrote: post #24
frollogaston wrote: post #3

Was pleasantly surprised to see the exact bug in here, in a "The Register" article of all places. Legg showed that fixing the bug invalidates the research. Seems Microsoft is responding to a clear problem with a vague dismissal. Edit: Oh, The Register is a true tech paper, guess the name makes sense for that. Got mixed up cause there are a bunch of general papers called something Register.

The Register is a tech paper that is modelled on various British tabloids (daily mail, the sun). Sometimes it's humor, sometimes it's real news and occasionally they even break a new story.

Haha, they got me. Was mostly thinking "The Daily Register" which doesn't exist, but Daily Mail does.

Re: Boffin claims Microsoft’s “quantum leap” is invalid due to “basic Python errors”

#27

Post by MobiusHorizons »

cpncrunch wrote: post #13
happytoexplain wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was surprised to see it - I thought "boffin" was good-natured but highly irreverent, like "nerd". But I can't imagine any publication writing the headline, "Computer nerd claims Microsoft's supposed quantum leap does not compute."

It's typical of the Register. They always use the word "boffin" for expert/scientist. It's a british word used to describe a clever person.

Roughly interchangeable with egg head I think, although more used and slightly more endearing.

Re: Boffin claims Microsoft’s “quantum leap” is invalid due to “basic Python errors”

#29

Post by gh02t »

happytoexplain wrote: post #11
gadders wrote: post #2

Love the word "boffin". I think we should use "pundit" more often as well.

I was surprised to see it - I thought "boffin" was good-natured but highly irreverent, like "nerd". But I can't imagine any publication writing the headline, "Computer nerd claims Microsoft's supposed quantum leap does not compute."

To be fair, "boffin" usually implies someone has relevant (usually scientific) expertise, but nerd doesn't. Henry Legg has the relevant credentials to give weight to his claims, he's not just some random basement nerd.

Re: Boffin claims Microsoft’s “quantum leap” is invalid due to “basic Python errors”

#30

Post by rvba »

mjhay wrote: post #9

You’d really think they’d really check everything and cross their t’s after their previous issues in marjorana fermion QC. I generally have a very high opinion of MS research, but this is getting a bit embarrassing.

Looks that the next step of this "project" is selecting a patsy and blaming all on that one sacrificial person
Post reply on HN