Wednesday, December 11, 2019

Preskill actually abandoned "quantum supremacy" because of the nut jobs from Nature

Cowardliness and opportunism may be limitless

In the morning, Peter told us about an incredible piece of "correspondence" published by Nature yesterday:
Supremacy is for racists — use ‘quantum advantage’
Three inkspillers plus 13 co-signatories have exclaimed that "quantum supremacy" (the ability of quantum computers to solve tasks unsolvable by "contemporary" classical computers in realistic time frames, or the period when this ability exists; and "approximately now", that epoch is getting started) – a scientific phrase that has appeared in 1590 papers so far – should be left to violent neocolonialists and racists and everyone else should use another term.

They randomly chose "quantum advantage".

That's an inappropriate term because it doesn't convey the qualitative "tipping point" character of the transition. Whether the Google's 53-qubit quantum computer is already stronger than its classical counterpart for some special task is disputed – largely because of the details such as "what is exactly a counterpart" and "how much time we should give to the classical ones" – but a relatively small, few-qubit improvement of the quantum computer is clearly enough to make the superiority of the quantum computers self-evident by adding several orders of magnitude to the speed ratio.

Well, I find it amazing that Nature that used to be a respectable journal is publishing similar lunacy from such despicable and intellectually empty activists these days.

These NPCs have also criticized the usage of the terms "conquest, colonization, and settlement" for conquest, colonization, and settlement in the field of the human and robotic spaceflight. Those are apparently politically incorrect for these authors, too. How do you want to rename colonization? It's called by the same word as other examples of colonization because it's another example of colonization, PC morons.

The word "colony" isn't a neologism or slur for some cruel acts. Instead, the Latin word colonia was already used in ancient Rome, for settlements outside Italy – mostly started by retired soldiers – and the word boils down to -cola, an inhabitant, and then to colere, to cultivate (you should volare, cantare first; the Czech parody "Corals, Sandals" is about gypsy migrants to Finland – I hope that at least those are PC enough). Colonies are previously uncultivated places where some new inhabitants move and cultivate the place. Only uncultivated people who are offended by the very fact that others are (or may consider themselves) cultivated may feel "offended" by the very existence of this word.

("Conquest" is from an Old French word for "acquisition", "settlement" is the newest English word from the 1620s.)

Well, I used my knowledge of string theory to predict this particular "backlash". In early October, Preskill wrote a Quanta Magazine piece Why I called it Quantum Supremacy. Why would he suddenly need to explain the choice of the term that has been used for years in way over one thousand technical publications? Well, I had an explanation a day later:

Well, could one be afraid of the possibility that John Preskill, a famous guy in quantum computing, is just a lackey of not really famous but unhinged SJWs? In the Quanta Magazine piece, he specifically addressed the alternative phrase "quantum advantage":
I considered but rejected several other possibilities, deciding that quantum supremacy best captured the point I wanted to convey. One alternative is “quantum advantage,” which is also now widely used. But to me, “advantage” lacks the punch of “supremacy.” In a race, a horse has an advantage if it wins by a nose. In contrast, the speed of a quantum computer vastly exceeds that of classical computers, for certain tasks. At least, that’s true in principle.

The recent Google paper illustrates the point. [...]
OK, on October 2nd, he wrote a text about the desired terminology and he seemed to know why he was using "quantum supremacy". His explanation was clearly equivalent to mine. What about December 11th? Well, he just happened to deliver a conference talk one hour ago:

Note that Prof Ludlow actually did use "quantum supremacy" in the tweet. So I asked her whether he "bravely" used "quantum supremacy" in the talk – needless to say, the word "bravely" was meant as a joke. But it wasn't a good joke:

Wow. Dr Preskill, aren't you ashamed of being this kind of a hardcore coward? How does it feel to be a pußy of sixteen (OK, 1000 in binary) zeroes? People who are far from being supreme?

I encourage readers from Caltech to spit at Prof Preskill, a spineless collaborationist with pure evil. Maybe he needs to start to drown in saliva to understand that pure evil shouldn't be supported in this way.

OK, I had to pick Martin Chodúr's remake of "Love Supreme" because Robbie Williams' voice wasn't manly enough and the original version would lack the punch of "supremacy".

Let's hope that the NPCs will never open the U.S. Constitution because they would find 3 copies of the word "supremacy" there (two of them are in "national supremacy") and they would start to burn the book immediately.

No comments:

Post a Comment