New Scientist article

Google demonstrates quantum computer image search

(uuhhh… well not exactly. It was a binary classifier.)

My favorite part of the article:

“It is widely accepted that trapped ions are the most successful implementation of quantum technology.”

Uhhh…. no.

As someone once succinctly put it, “superconducting flux qubits FTW!”

4 thoughts on “New Scientist article

  1. I hear you JP, but oh man, that ARS Technica article was BRU – TAL. I don’t know if there was a single paragraph without a conceptual, or factual error. And I can’t go back to double check because my eyes are bleeding.

  2. Most of the issues in the Ars Technica article appear to be because the author’s based it on the New Scientist article, which was full of factual errors to begin with, instead of the original Google Research Blog article, which is as accurate as I know about.

    I mean, the author correctly guesses that it’s not actually classifying images *on* the chip, that that part is done by something like a neural network. The complaints about a lack of testing quantumness are at least partly addressed in the Google article.

    I blame articles that dumb some things down to the point where they’re completely wrong, and don’t dumb down or explain other things that aren’t relevant and are much more complicated in reality. e.g. the whole “0, 1, or 0 and 1” thing has caused so much misconception that I could rip my hair out.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s