"Quantum Supremacy" is a technical term, not a colloquial one. It refers to showing that there exists a problem that a real, physical quantum computer can solve quickly that a classical computer cannot.
Reading the IBM article, they are fully aware of what "quantum supremacy" means in a technical sense, and they are urging the media not to use that term, since it will be misunderstood by the public. Their claim that Google has failed to achieve supremacy rests solely on their claim that they can simulate the circuit far faster (and scale the simulation linearly) using better classical algorithms.
That's a strong claim, and I'm interested in seeing what Google responds with.
Disclosure: I work at Google, but hahaha, no, I'm not cool enough to work on this.
Reading the IBM article, they are fully aware of what "quantum supremacy" means in a technical sense, and they are urging the media not to use that term, since it will be misunderstood by the public. Their claim that Google has failed to achieve supremacy rests solely on their claim that they can simulate the circuit far faster (and scale the simulation linearly) using better classical algorithms.
That's a strong claim, and I'm interested in seeing what Google responds with.
Disclosure: I work at Google, but hahaha, no, I'm not cool enough to work on this.