That's not why I'm saying it's probably not a quantum computer. It's not a quantum computer because in depth analysis of its behavior has consistently shown that above the ~20 qubit scale it's better modeled by a classical explanation than a quantum one. We only really have evidence of entanglement at the 8 qubit level[1] so far.
The fact that the processing power is abysmal just makes the hype even more ridiculous. The point of that fact is that it's not like the EmDrive, where it's doing something we can't yet explain under the assumption that nothing interesting is going on. If it weren't for the fact we've looked inside, it could be running a basic Intel CPU for all we know. There's no smoke at any level, so it's nonsensical to give D-Wave a pass and think they've got some fire.
My only objection is on this suggestion - that they have to find something it's already better at than a desktop PC (with literally billions of transistors).
I quoted the part I objected to.
This is like saying that NASA has never gone to space, because there is not ONE thing they have EVER done in space, no matter how arbitrary, (including going to the moon) that I care about more than literature.
Let's look at the parts of my analogy:
NASA has not gone to space BECAUSE it is not better than something irrelevant.
DWAVE does not have a quantum computer BECAUSE it is not better than something irrelevant.
What on Earth do classical computers have to do with whether DWAVE is using quantum effects?
This is very irrelevant.
I can't believe so many people use this to "prove" that it's not a quantum computer. This is a complete and utter non sequitur.
This is very basic logic. It's like saying that until the minute a machine beat Kasparov at chess, computers couldn't play chess.
In a very narrow sense of cheating, sure, a computer could fake playing chess if a person is hidden and playing for the computer. Maybe the comouter isn't even powered on. Likewise, in a narrow sense a classical computer could be hidden in the DWAVE's cabinet and producing the output with a python script. Maybe the DWAVE isn't even powered on. (and has a cheater inside, a macbook.)
But short of this scenario it is a completely inappropriate point to make. It doesn't say anything about how dwave works.
-> Are you accusing them of not even powering it on and hiding a macbook in the case, which produces all its results? (if not, how is your contention different.)