I think it's fundamentally misleading, even on the central quantum stuff:

I missed what you saw, that's certainly a massive oof. It's not even wrong, in the Pauli sense, i.e. it's not just a simplistic rendering of ECC.

It also strongly tripped my internal GPT detector.

Also, it goes on and on about realtime decoding, the foundation of the article is Google's breakthrough is real time, and the Google article was quite clear that it isn't real time.*

I'm a bit confused, because it seems completely wrong, yet they published it, and there's enough phrasing that definitely doesn't trip my GPT detector. My instinct is someone who doesn't have years of background knowledge / formal comp sci & physics education made a valiant effort.

I'm reminded that my throughly /r/WSB-ified MD friend brings up "quantum computing is gonna be big what stonks should I buy" every 6 months, and a couple days ago he sent me a screenshot of my AI app that had a few conversations with him hunting for opportunities.

* "While AlphaQubit is great at accurately identifying errors, it’s still too slow to correct errors in a superconducting processor in real time"

This is not about AlphaQubit. It's about a different paper, https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.13687 and they do demonstrate real-time decoding.

> we show that we can maintain below-threshold operation on the 72-qubit processor even when decoding in real time, meeting the strict timing requirements imposed by the processor’s fast 1.1 μs cycle duration

Yeah, I didn't want to just accuse the article of being AI generated since quantum isn't my specialty, but this kind of error instantly tripped my "it doesn't sound like this person knows what they're talking about alarm" which likely indicates a bad LLM helped summarize the quantum paper for the author.