Wednesday, June 7, 2023

More Doubts about Google Quantum Supremacy

Gil Kalai has written another paper challenging Google's 2019 paper that was titled, “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor”.

Google's paper was published in the British science journal Nature, and made a big splash.

He says:

the supremacy claim has largely (but not fully) been refuted. There are also doubts regarding the claim that the Sycamore 2019 experiment represents a “programmable processor” as the calibration process and other matters weaken this.
I am sure the Google folks would say that better results are on the way, and will see no need to respond.


  1. Oh dear god. How long has it been now since they declared themselves supreme...with a computer that hasn't actually done anything useful that a Chinese computer science grad can't do with a classical computer with some clever programming. I know for certain this is so, as Google's own PR department would have jumped up and down and cried such an accomplishment from the rooftops... had they actually accomplished something of note.

    Bullshit is as bullshit does, and it certainly rules the quantum computing hype. Sort of fitting, as it fits into the whole 'is it true or false' if no one actually looks into it and finds out it's actually just an incredibly expensive load of crap being used to write off billions of dollars. Just think of all the black ops programs our benevolent government could hide under the pretense of funding quantum computing malarkey.

  2. When someone builds a super whatsit computer that can actually do what they say, they brag about it, demonstrate it, and make certain everyone knows they delivered.

    Now...if someone spends a lot of money to build something... and you notice they have fallen silent, this is what you call a red flag. You can only be certain that the money is long gone, nothing of note was ever built, and the folks who spent it are nowhere to be found...until the next monumental proposal.