[twtw]

Right, and the paper itself is very upfront about that. I don't have any objection to the research, which is likely very valuable, but I do find it strange that the article claims they solved two problems without mentioning that only one of the solutions was correct.

It would be great if the article said they solved one and made good progress on techniques for the second that will likely work on next generation hardware, but the article didn't say that. I don't see how it being a matter of scale makes this acceptable. It's like the U.S. national labs unveiling the world's first exaflop supercomputer, with a footnote indicating that in fact the computer is only 100 petaflops at the moment.

[KKKKkkkk1]

> It's like the U.S. national labs unveiling the world's first exaflop supercomputer, with a footnote indicating that in fact the computer is only 100 petaflops at the moment.

Can you add context?

[jcranmer]

This is referring to the Summit supercomputer announcement a few months ago.

Measuring the speed of a supercomputer is difficult because there are several factors that control performance that affect benchmarks very differently. The most common benchmark in use is LINPACK, which measures how long it takes the computer to solve an appropriately large matrix equation Ax = b and then computes how many floating-point operations such an equation notionally takes. This has been criticized for various reasons, but it's what TOP500 measures.

Summit scored 143 PFLOPS on this metric. However, the press release called it a exascale supercomputer because it can issue 1 quadrillion instructions per second, so 1 exaop. To most people in the industry, the goal of exascale meant 1 EFLOP on LINPACK, so it really does come across as saying "We built a 1 EFLOP computer (footnote: only 143 PFLOPS)."