jd007

Hi HN, we are an YC alum founding team rethinking back-office workflows for banks and credit unions. We're tackling a $100 billion problem with the kind of automation problems that require long-context reasoning, tool orchestration across many critical systems, and strict compliance loops: the ones without known answers.

We've shipped real agents that handle real customer workflows in production. With a growing customer base and live deployments, we're scaling up fast and looking for deeply technical builders who want to have outsized impact early.

- Because of the above point, this does not mean that the quantum computer can do anything useful (definitely not factor numbers). It is nowhere near high fidelity enough to run highly error corrected algorithms (which Shor's and Grover's algorithms demand)

Since this is a mostly theoretical exercise to begin with, it's weird that they mention the computational cost of the classical method in terms of real computer times on supercomputers, and almost don't mention the theoretical bounds. The practical cost doesn't matter much as far as demonstrating quantum supremacy is concerned.

As far as I know, the key to claiming true quantum supremacy in this case, is actually the proof of the theoretical complexity of the classical algorithm. The quantum computer is obviously efficient at solving the problem, considering that the problem was constructed with what a QC is good at in mind. And the hardness of any classical algorithms had been somewhat demonstrated already, by Aaronson and Arkhipov in 2011. They managed to show that if there is a polynomial time classical algorithm capable of solving this sampling problem, then the polynomial hierarchy would collapse, which is seen as extremely unlikely (on the same level as showing P=NP).