Nostr Web Client

I think there is some conflation going on here.

Referee #1 is taking issue with the methodology to demonstrate quantum advantage, not the technology itself. (The referee states being impressed with the technology itself.) I agree that demonstrating quantum advantage is messy, and the methodology here is convoluted. Essentially you're trying to prove you got a right answer in an environment where no other technology is able to check your answer, and that's never going to be clean.

Reviewer 2 "extremely impressive experiment", etc. I think I read the word impressed 20 or 30 times in the reviews. Or course on the fringes of every field you get the bullshit callers (I remember them very well in the world of machine learning 10 years go; they are all very quiet now) but the general the bullshit callers are on the fringe here.

I don't think there's any question in the field at large whether 2025 was a breakthrough year, particularly with what Harvard and all demonstrated in December.

You state you've concluded it's bullshit. That's seems rather close minded, but fair enough. In that case the only thing is to wait for the results of the experiments in 2026. If something happens that makes it pretty obvious that this is potentially a very real thread to encryption over the next 10 years I'll jump back on this thread to see what you think.

U-P-G-R-A-Y-E-D-D 2d ago

Appreciate the earnest conversion and a good place to conclude: we'll see.

Yes, I think it's complete BS, including the fundamental principles that it's built upon. In my opinion, it's just another money-pit boondoggle like CERN and the vast majority of quantum theory and mathematics (string theory etc.)

When people start talking, and publishing paradigm-shattering papers solely based on thought experiments like trains moving at light speed, bowling balls on trampolines, and dead cats in boxes, that's a signal to take a hard look at the math and evidence.

I'd change my stance if presented with legitimate, verifiable evidence, but this latest paper certainly doesn't make the cut.

If someone can't explain something in simple terms, then they don't understand it or they're just bullshitting.

Many people point to all of the PhDs and funding as evidence, but I see these as a motive to continue the con.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

JOE2o 2d ago

Fair take.

My take is that fusion, quantum, gene editing, etc., these are in the category of "all hype and bullshit--until they aren’t".

AI is in the same category, just further along. It was all hype and bullshit, I remember very clearly. And now it isn’t.

Sometimes such things can be in “all hype and bullshit” status for decades and decades--until suddenly they aren’t. Case in point is CRISPR, this sort of gene editing was “around the corner” for decades, and everyone got tired of the hype, all the bullshit--until suddenly one day we were actually around that corner and it wasn’t bullshit anymore. I suspect the same will be true for fusion, my bet would be on the plasma controlled with AI stellarator path.

Everyone is just making best-guess predictions, any of which can be shattered the next morning by the results of a new experiment.