eigenket

I don't know anything about this specific LLM thing but if it correctly uses the Nash bargaining optimiser then that won't happen.

This thing you point out is exactly why Nash demanded invariance under affine transformations in his solution. Using completely arbitrary units if I rank everything as having importance 1 million, that's exactly the same as ranking everything as having importance 1, and also the same as ranking everything as having importance 0.

The solution is only sensitive to diffences in the unitity function, not the actual values of the function. If you want to weight something very strongly in the Nash version of the game you also have to weight other things correspondingly weakly.

I would say almost exactly the opposite is happening. Academia generally publishes it's results relatively freely but academic AI research is largely being left in the dust by large corporations who do not find it in their interest to publicly describe the "magic dust" that makes their products work.

Yeah the whole entangled system is present and interacting with the "thermal ancilla" in their setup.

There is not an "OS" or anything even remotely like it. For now these things behave more like physics experiments than computers.

You can play around with "quantum programming" through (e.g.) some of IBM's offerings and there has been work on quantum programming languages like q# from Microsoft but its unclear (to me) how useful these are.

I'm not sure what that has to do with my previous comment but yeah, pushing the boundaries of science is kinda difficult and you can make mistakes.

My understanding is that they pretty convincingly showed that the thing they built acts as a qubit. This means that if its not doing what they think its doing (the "topological" / Majorana stuff) then they accidentally made a qubit which works some other way. That isn't outside the realm of possibility but it is fairly unlikely.

The Majorana particles in Microsoft's set-up are "quasi-particles". They aren't really fundamental particles, but excitations in the system which behave (roughly, in some appropriate sense) like particles. They aren't neutrinos.

The point is that Grothendieck, easily one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, who regularly proved deep and fundamental facts about prime numbers, cared so little about particular numbers that he accidentally gave an easy to see non-prime as an example of a prime.

He was used to working on completely different levels of abstraction, so when faced with concrete numbers he could easily make a mistake that a school-child (or hacker news commenter) could spot.

The formal class is called BQP, in analogy with the classical complexity clas BPP. BQP contains BPP but there is no proof that it is stictly bigger (such a proof would imply P != NP). There are problems in BQP we expect are not in BPP but its not clear if there are any useful problems in BQP and not in BPP, other than essentially Shor's algorithm.

On the other hand it's actually not completely necessary to have a superpolynomial quantum advantage in order to have some quantum advantage. A quantum computer running in quadratic time is still (probably) more useful than a classical computer running in O(n^100) time, even though they're both technically polynomial. An example of this is classical algorithms for simulating quantum circuits with bounded error whose runtime is like n^(1/eps) where eps is the error. If you pick eps=0.01 you've got a technically polynomial runtime classical algorithm but it's runtime is gonna be n^100, which is likely very large.

I don't think it's completely clear (to me) that quantum networking is an oxymoron. I would enthusiastically agree that its very complicated and the real world use cases are incredibly limited.

As far as your routing/switching qualms go I think they are mostly addressed by entanglement swapping? Person A and person B can each make an entangled pair and send me half, and I can (locally) do stuff which leads to the halves they keep at home becoming entangled. Then they can use teleportation or whatever to do whatever they want between themselves without me knowing anything about it.

Neither of Gödel's two incompleteness theorems apply to quantum mechanics.

The two theorems apply to logical systems which prove facts about the natural numbers. While this is an incredibly broad class of things, it doesn't include physical theories like quantum mechanics.

Nuclear weapons (based on quantum mechanics and special relativity) were used less than 6 years after that quote.

Why doesn't this experimental result count as requiring explanation?

We know (for example) silver atoms have mass, and that massive objects exert gravity (which we understand as warping of space-time according to GR).

We know that we can put silver atoms in quantum superpositions of being in different positions (for example in a sequential Stern-Gerlach type experiment).

We have (essentially) absolutely no theoretical understanding of what is going on to space-time when a thing with mass is in such a superposition. Quantum mechanics does not successfully model gravity, and general relativity contains no superpositions, so the situation is completely beyond our theoretical understanding. This isn't a theoretical consideration, this is something real that you can do in an undergrad physics lab experiment pretty easily.

Now the problem is that the models we have developed so far to deal with this situation turned out to be (wildly) too difficult for us to test. I think it is very far from clear that the Oppenheim & co model falls into this category - imo its completely reasonable for them to be spending theoretical effort working out what is needed to test their model.

I would say that's an overly simplistic view. The only way we ever obtain testable things is by working on things which are not currently testable.