Remix.run Logo
MathMonkeyMan 8 hours ago

The title of this post changed as I was reading it. "It looks like the 'JVG algorithm' only wins on tiny numbers" is a charitable description. The article is Scott Aaronson lambasting the paper and shaming its authors as intellectual hooligans.

Strilanc 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Agree. Scott is exactly correct when he just straight calls it crap.

It's inaccurate to say it wins on small numbers because on small numbers you would use classical computers. By the time you get to numbers that take more than a minute to factor classically, and start dreaming of quantum computers, you're well beyond the size where you could tractably do the proposed state preparation.

amelius 2 minutes ago | parent [-]

Well, the reviewers missed it too.

measurablefunc 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

adgjlsfhk1 5 hours ago | parent [-]

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

measurablefunc 4 hours ago | parent [-]

All I know is he keeps being wrong about quantum supremacy but maybe this is the year he finally gets his wish.

adgjlsfhk1 4 hours ago | parent [-]

he's been right about it. quantum supremacy was achieved in 2023 (but only for incredibly useless problems)

gsf_emergency_7 an hour ago | parent [-]

Yeah I think GP might now prefer his statement(s) to have been about "quantum _advantage_". Which is the modish term after all.