←back to thread

429 points AbhishekParmar | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
FabHK ◴[] No.45672081[source]
So, "verifiable" here means "we ran it twice and got the same result"?

> Quantum verifiability means the result can be repeated on our quantum computer — or any other of the same caliber — to get the same answer, confirming the result.

replies(5): >>45672203 #>>45672432 #>>45672763 #>>45673830 #>>45673924 #
1. pred_ ◴[] No.45673924[source]
Normally, where I come from anyway, verifiability would refer to the ability to prove to a classical skeptic that the quantum device did what it's supposed to, cf. e.g. Mahadev (https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.01082), Aaronson (https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.06930), in a strong, theoretical, sense. And that's indeed relevant in the context of proving advantage, as the earlier RCS experiments lacked that ability, so “demonstrating verifiable quantum advantage” would be quite the step forward. That doesn't appear to be what they did at all though. Indeed, the paper appears to barely touch on verifiability at all. And – unlike the press release – it doesn't claim to achieve advantage either; only to indicate “a viable path towards” it.
replies(1): >>45674791 #
2. leoc ◴[] No.45674791[source]
So the Scott Aaronson Full Employment Conjecture remains unrefuted?