[btilly]

You're attacking me for what I didn't say and ignoring what I did. I'm not attacking D-Wave for their ambitions. I'm attacking the article for being a puff piece.

The article, in the second paragraph, says ...the computer can solve a certain type of problem much faster than conventional computers... which is a claim that even cursory research into the subject would find false. (Though a PR company could easily deliver a packet of materials and people to talk to which would give a journalists quotes on both sides, and leave them thinking that it was true.) That theme of "this is insanely fast" is repeated throughout the piece in various ways with no challenges. The journalist did not do their homework.

That right there is the evidence upon which I base my assertion that this is a puff piece. This looks and feels in every way like what a journalist might write based on the information given by a PR firm.

Full stop.

As for the rest, you're unfairly misrepresenting what Scott Aaronson has been saying. His statement all along is that D-Wave's marketing exceeds their delivery, and he's afraid that a legitimate field of study - which he's involved with - could suffer backlash as a result. He has repeatedly said, and I believe him on this, that if they can actually deliver then he'll be a huge fan. But as long as they say they have delivered when they haven't, he's going to be a critic.

This seems to me to be a reasonable response to an overhyped implementation of cool technology. There always will be salesmen overselling their products. But for building long-term trust, remember the mantra "under promise and over deliver". D-Wave is doing the opposite.