6 Comments
User's avatar
silentium3000's avatar

I slogged through it yesterday and did enjoy reading it.

I got the gist of it, but your summary very much makes it more comprehensible.

What can I say but "Top Dog and First Mover in an Important, Emerging Industry" lol

Thanks for this very helpful post!

Expand full comment
sher bati's avatar

Another confusing article just published.

https://arxiv.org/html/2503.21565v1

Expand full comment
sher bati's avatar

Than you, very informative and well written.

Have you also looked into what the critics have to say too?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/d-wave-claims-quantum-supremacy-beating-traditional-computers-155ca634?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Expand full comment
stephen Tobin's avatar

Thanks. I spoke to the CEO of D-Wave a little while ago and he mentioned the team trying to disprove the D-Wave work. He pointed out that they had not submitted any work to the journal to challenge the work and they openly admit that they had not managed to replicate the D-Wave work but that they thought they would be able to. There is a big difference between saying you think you can do something and actually doing it.

Expand full comment
sher bati's avatar

Seems they have published a new article challenging D-wave claims.

Any thought on that?

http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05693

Expand full comment
stephen Tobin's avatar

Thanks for linking that. It will take sometime for me to come to a complete conclusion, the paper involves some maths I am not familiar with. The abstract is promising for D-Wave as the approach could only simulate 300 qubits when D-Wave are running with 5,000. The paper also indicates that they have found a viable approach using tensor networks but did not manage to complete the work. On the face of it this does not sound that believable, tensor networks are a well known method for this type of problem but no one has been able to scale them.

Expand full comment