I don't see anything in the parent quotes that addresses the discussion of the article, which goes into the relative performance of the D-Wave and custom algorithms in detail, describing situations where the D-Wave is faster;
"But importantly, if you move to problems with structure, then the hardware does much better. See Figure 3. This example is intriguing from a physics perspective, since it suggests co-tunneling is helping the hardware figure out that the spins in each unit cell have to to be flipped as a block to see a lower energy state..."
Which isn't a blanket endorsement but is a statement that there are places where they can show D-Wave is better (Vs Aaronson's "Unfortunately, no one seems to know how to characterize the instances on which the D-Wave machine will do best")
Edit: Looking at Aaronsen's blog, he is using some very recent results but I don't see any indications that these results are the same as those referenced by the parent article here by the "Google AI Team". Maybe I'm missing something.
"But importantly, if you move to problems with structure, then the hardware does much better. See Figure 3. This example is intriguing from a physics perspective, since it suggests co-tunneling is helping the hardware figure out that the spins in each unit cell have to to be flipped as a block to see a lower energy state..."
Which isn't a blanket endorsement but is a statement that there are places where they can show D-Wave is better (Vs Aaronson's "Unfortunately, no one seems to know how to characterize the instances on which the D-Wave machine will do best")
Edit: Looking at Aaronsen's blog, he is using some very recent results but I don't see any indications that these results are the same as those referenced by the parent article here by the "Google AI Team". Maybe I'm missing something.