"You can see my 2013 responses to Dyakonov here. Is there any new argument in this latest piece, which would require a new response?
He’s right that the applications of QC have often been grotesquely overhyped in the press (but any reader of this blog surely knew that). He’s right that building a scalable QC is unbelievably hard. He’s wrong in almost everything he says about fault-tolerance, with the most egregious howler being that no one has any idea how to account for imprecision in preparing the initial states and applying the gates. He apparently still doesn’t understand that the fault-tolerance theorem handles such imprecisions in exactly the same way it handles environmental decoherence—it all gets folded into the same error budget—and the implication that no one in QC would’ve noticed that gates are imperfect is laughable.
(Also, he’s badly out of date when he says the best current QC experiments are with 5 qubits: has he not heard that IBM has a 20-qubit device currently available for public use? That Google, IonQ, and others have likewise gotten good results with 20+ qubit experiments? What about the 50+ qubit experiments of Misha Lukin and others with optical lattices?)
Truthfully, though, in the years before quantum computational supremacy first gets convincingly demonstrated, I’m happy to have as many Dyakonovs as possible confidently predicting that it’s impossible. What I worry about more right now, is all the people who will say it was completely obvious all along that quantum supremacy was possible, it’s just 1926 QM, so what was the point of doing it? 🙂"
« Older Local production, reliability, easy repair, and... | Ugliness is a gatekeeper to being worthy of love Newer »