Re:The “JVG algorithm” only wins on tiny numbers
by measurablefunc on Monday March 09, 2026 @10:11PM
(#47318358)
Scott Aaronson is the guy who keeps claiming quantum supremacy is here every year so he's like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The “JVG algorithm” only wins on tiny numbers
by adgjlsfhk1 on Monday March 09, 2026 @11:55PM
(#47318943)
the reason people pay attention to him is that he does a good job publicizing both positive and negative results, and accurately categorizing which are bullshit
Re:The “JVG algorithm” only wins on tiny numbers
by measurablefunc on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @12:24AM
(#47319084)
All I know is he keeps being wrong about quantum supremacy but maybe this is the year he finally gets his wish.
Re:The “JVG algorithm” only wins on tiny numbers
by adgjlsfhk1 on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @12:52AM
(#47319196)
he's been right about it. quantum supremacy was achieved in 2023 (but only for incredibly useless problems)
Re:The “JVG algorithm” only wins on tiny numbers
by gsf_emergency_7 on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @04:06AM
(#47320328)
Yeah I think GP might now prefer his statement(s) to have been about "quantum _advantage_". Which is the modish term after all.
Re:The “JVG algorithm” only wins on tiny numbers
by Strilanc on Tuesday March 10, 2026 @05:28AM
(#47320898)
What do you mean? The original 2019 supremacy experiment was eventually simulated, as better classical methods were found, but the followups are still holding strong (for example [4] and [5]).
There was recently a series of blog posts by Dominik Hangleiter summarizing the situation: [1][2][3].
[1]: https://quantumfrontiers.com/2026/01/06/has-quantum-advantag...
[2]: https://quantumfrontiers.com/2026/01/25/has-quantum-advantag...
[3]: https://quantumfrontiers.com/2026/02/28/what-is-next-in-quan...
Re:The “JVG algorithm” only wins on tiny numbers
by Strilanc on Wednesday March 11, 2026 @02:08PM
(#47339058)
Minor update: Dominik condensed the blog posts into a pre-print: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.09901