My level of expertise on quantum computing is very low.
The announce of the imminent advent of the Quantum Computer seems to be recurring every few months since at least 20 years, at this point I don't care anymore.
The announce of the imminent advent of the Quantum Computer seems to be recurring every few months since at least 20 years, at this point I don't care anymore.
I can only speak for my place of work (not publicly) and pass along scuttlebutt... but, my understanding is that it's largely the same everywhere. Some efforts have tight budgets, some have billions backing them; but QC research is hugely expensive with more unknowns than knowns. People giving out the cash want results sooner than later. At my workplace, the researchers are in a continual pitched battle with management to keep a rein on marketing, limit expectations, etc., and it's a major distraction. When management misunderstands an early result, and oversells it to their superiors (if not the press!), suddenly they think it's appropriate to make "Quantum Supremacy" a task with a 6-month deadline.
It all makes me want to crawl into a box and take a nap.
Google’s supremacy result is an indicator of progress, not an indicator of practicality or “advantage”. Google knows this, and hasn’t claimed anything more.
The supremacy result should be viewed only for its scientific meaning and merit and nothing more.
A few false experts friends had a very different discourse a few decades ago, but they were probably misled and ignorant.
At this point I think it might need a renaming. Quantum device or apparatus maybe?
Quantum Computer is a bit misleading...
Gil makes this point, but doesn't call it out: they're claiming supremacy by turning the challenge around. "You can't classically simulate our device (which largely does it's own thing because of issues)."
A kid shoots an arrow at a target. The arrow hits the haybale, but not the target. Suddenly the kid yells "I bet you can't hit my arrow!" and claims Archer Supremacy because nobody even cares to try. Are you impressed? I'm not.
Or to make a less specific analogy, there is something about the kid's archery that regular archers can't replicate with their archery skills, but it's not really something that anyone would traditionally have described as "skilled archery". Then Aaronson and Kalai disagree about whether or not this unusual feat that's not very easy to relate conceptually to the ability to hit targets is a sign that the kid is plausibly going to be able to achieve traditional archery skill in the future.
Is that fair?
Yes, I'd call that a fair description.
I don't understand this, could you explain?
My understanding is that the gates are perfectly normal quantum gates, which they use to connect qubits in a programmable way. Due to the probabilistic nature of quantum computing, running this circuit generates samples from a random distribution.
The fact that quantum computing behaves "randomly" by nature further complicates the discussion :)