When I see “boffin” in a title I think “The Register” so kudos I guess.
Boffin claims Microsoft’s “quantum leap” is invalid due to “basic Python errors”
31–40 of 64 posts
Re: Boffin claims Microsoft’s “quantum leap” is invalid due to “basic Python errors”
#32Re: Boffin claims Microsoft’s “quantum leap” is invalid due to “basic Python errors”
#33Majorana fermion and Ettore Majorana are fascinating
Re: Boffin claims Microsoft’s “quantum leap” is invalid due to “basic Python errors”
#34Is it premature to assume it's due to AI Microslop?
Unless if you list AI as a co-author, people are still responsible for the code they ship. Whatever tool was used to write said code
Re: Boffin claims Microsoft’s “quantum leap” is invalid due to “basic Python errors”
#35You’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
[deleted]
Re: Boffin claims Microsoft’s “quantum leap” is invalid due to “basic Python errors”
#36Was 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.
I always find it hard to remember which of the British publications are real and which are pure trash. Usually they reveal it pretty quickly with the writing though.
Re: Boffin claims Microsoft’s “quantum leap” is invalid due to “basic Python errors”
#37https://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 wer…
On Hacker News you can indent code samples with two spaces, like this:
return xr.apply_ufunc(
lambda x: (x - x[::-1]) / 2,
conductance,
input_core_dims=[dims],
output_core_dims=[dims],
vectorize=True,
)Re: Boffin claims Microsoft’s “quantum leap” is invalid due to “basic Python errors”
#38Was 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.
I wouldn’t say it was modeled on that trash, rather they poke fun at them, eg, the term boffin is obviously used tongue in cheeck
Re: Boffin claims Microsoft’s “quantum leap” is invalid due to “basic Python errors”
#39i assumed Boffin was their last name
Re: Boffin claims Microsoft’s “quantum leap” is invalid due to “basic Python errors”
#40I guess Microsoft upper management doesn't understand anything at all about quantum computing and they are "scammed" by Microsoft research people in quantum computing telling them they are making breakthroughts, that in a few years that can become a real thing, etc. They just need to publish some impressive sounding papers a little bit once in a while and the thing keeps rolling.
May be it is just me but when I see all these quantum computing pseudo results I wonder how people can believe this thing has any hope to work at all so much it is ungrounded to reality.
All in all, the whole fundation of the quantum treatment is flawed in my humble opinion because of the idea of wave-packet collapse, when a measurement is done, is by itself completely unsound. However they assume it holds perfectly and base a ton on speculative calculations assuming that principle holds perfectly which is far from true.
Successful engineering and technology development is not done having a crazy idea that holds only based on a number of highly incertain assumptions but it needs solid ideas developed incrementally iterating from things we already know. First electricity, then basic electronics, the diode, then bipolar transistors, then J-FET, then MOSFET and so on.