The case against Google's claims of "quantum supremacy"

(gilkalai.wordpress.com)

183 points | by nsoonhui 4 months ago ago

6 comments

  • GilKalai 4 months ago

    Hi everybody, my post summarizes an on-going 5-year research project and four papers about the 2019 Google experiment. The timing of the post was indeed related to Google's Willow announcement and the fantastic septillion assertion. It is not clear why Google added to the announcement of nice published results about quantum error correction a hyped undocumented fantastic claim. I think that our work on Google's 2019 experiment provides useful information for evaluating Google's scientific conduct.

  • gnabgib 4 months ago

    Strange timing given the claim was in 2019, guess this post was generated because of Willow.

    Google claims to have proved its supremacy with new quantum computer (256 points, 1 year ago, 229 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36567839

    Quantum computers: amazing progress, but probably false supremacy claims (126 points, 5 years ago, 73 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21167368

    Google Achieves Quantum Supremacy. Is Encryption Safe? (38 points, 5 years ago, 21 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21100983

    Google claims to have reached quantum supremacy (114 points, 5 years ago, 21 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21029598

    Google Engineers Think This 72-Qubit Processor Can Achieve Quantum Supremacy (91 points, 7 years ago, 42 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16543876

    Google plans to reach a Quantum Computing milestone before the year is out (147 points, 8 years ago, 49 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14171992

  • RivieraKid 4 months ago

    What's the most significant useful application of quantum computing, in other words, why should we be excited about QC, how will it improve people's lives?

  • 4 months ago
    [deleted]
  • bigbacaloa 4 months ago

    When plate tectonics was first proposed the low quality of the original models of the underlying mechanism led many very good geophysicists and geologists to reject it or to express well founded skepticism of the model. They knew the details and subtleties and the original models didn't deal well with them the proposal was nonetheless correct grosso modo and with time more adequate models of the underlying mechanisms were proposed and a more nuanced view of the model came into place. Now it is considered well established.

    One should consider the possibility that Gil Kalai is a similar sort of skeptic making well founded objections to weak arguments, but that nonetheless in the long run the extraordinary claims will turn out to be more or less correct. It's true that those involved in plate tectonics didn't have Bitcoin to sell you, but they were looking for oil.

  • Jackosas 4 months ago

    [dead]