[inasio]

Just wanted to point out that Scott Aaronson is not one of those anti quantum curmudgeons. Besides bashing on companies with questionable claims, I think he's been pretty open minded about looking for problems and algorithms with actual quantum advantages.

[nyrikki]

As someone who lived though one AI winter and seriously fears another, I view fighting hype is important to allowing useful research to happen.

'Super position' and 'entanglement' have been overly mystified in QM in general and the implications of probabilistic Turing machines vs the typical non-deterministic Turning machine examples is important.

While probabilistic Turing machines are non-deterministic, they don't work the way that most examples offer.

Same problem with elementary descriptions of entropy so it isn't just the quantum fields problem.

[ddri]

We are perhaps in something of a "quantum winter" at the moment, given the activity on the financial side of the QC industry as far as reverse listings, SPACs, and mergers have gone.

I work in this field as I find it compelling and the challenges of finding a worthy business case that applies beyond the fantastical potentials is one I feel worth my efforts/years. But equally open to failure where such yields an advance in our learning.

Aaronson is always an entertaining voice in the industry, although his focus on AI means less than I would hope to nudge us along at times. But he was in fine form at Q2B conference in Santa Clara recently, and I'm not anywhere near close to my contributions to the industry to ignore his thoughts as valuable to the discourse. Especially when pushing back on the emotional velocity we might have at times.