Agree. Scott is exactly correct when he just straight calls it crap.
replyIt's inaccurate to say it wins on small numbers because on small numbers you would use classical computers. By the time you get to numbers that take more than a minute to factor classically, and start dreaming of quantum computers, you're well beyond the size where you could tractably do the proposed state preparation.
Honestly i think he was remarkably polite given the sort of crap we are talking about.
replyWell, the reviewers missed it too.
replydeleted
replyScott Aaronson is the guy who keeps claiming quantum supremacy is here every year so he's like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.
replyWhat do you mean? The original 2019 supremacy experiment was eventually simulated, as better classical methods were found, but the followups are still holding strong (for example [4] and [5]).
There was recently a series of blog posts by Dominik Hangleiter summarizing the situation: [1][2][3].
reply[1]: https://quantumfrontiers.com/2026/01/06/has-quantum-advantag...
[2]: https://quantumfrontiers.com/2026/01/25/has-quantum-advantag...
[3]: https://quantumfrontiers.com/2026/02/28/what-is-next-in-quan...
[dead]
replythe reason people pay attention to him is that he does a good job publicizing both positive and negative results, and accurately categorizing which are bullshit
replyAll I know is he keeps being wrong about quantum supremacy but maybe this is the year he finally gets his wish.
replyhe's been right about it. quantum supremacy was achieved in 2023 (but only for incredibly useless problems)
replyYeah I think GP might now prefer his statement(s) to have been about "quantum _advantage_". Which is the modish term after all.
reply