[joe_the_user]

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.