shroedingaway

I attended a Google talk where they acknowledged difficulty in controlling their device. That was given as the motivation for running problems that consist of "random gates".

I fired my therapist for asking that too often. Not really. But that is uncomfortably close to the truth.

> 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".

Yes, I'd call that a fair description.

No that's the funniest aspect of the Google result. They barely have any control over what their gates do.

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.

As a licensed quantum computologist (um... not really, but I do work for a major QC effort)... your skepticism is not misplaced.

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.