top | item 42390082

(no title)

supernewton | 1 year ago

You know he's been responding directly on Scott Aaronson's blog, right?

discuss

order

VirusNewbie|1 year ago

he stopped responding when Scott told him how his prediction was wrong.

da-bacon|1 year ago

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8525#comment-1997424

“Gil Kalai #23: So we’re perfectly clear, from my perspective your position has become like that of Saddam Hussein’s information minister, who repeatedly went on TV to explain how Iraq was winning the war even as American tanks rolled into Baghdad. I.e., you are writing to us from an increasingly remote parallel universe. The smooth exponential falloff of circuit fidelity with the number of gates has by now been seen in separate experiments from Google, IBM, Quantinuum, QuEra, USTC, and probably others I’m forgetting right now. Yes, IBM’s gate fidelity is a little lower than Google’s, but the exponential falloff pattern is the same. And, far from being “statistically unreasonable,” this exponential falloff is precisely what the simplest model of the situation (i.e., independent depolarizing noise on each qubit) would predict. You didn’t predict it, because you started from the axiom that quantum error-correction had to fail somehow—but the rest of us, who didn’t start from that axiom, did predict it!”

Ouch.

fluoridation|1 year ago

You know people sometimes don't know things, right?