texaslonghorn5
Joined 4 years ago
Joined 4 years ago
There's very little of substance in this article, since it doesn't disclose the intelligence or the officials making the judgement. So it comes across as "x refused to comment, y refused to comment, but we wanted to break the story first so trust me bro"
The author uses similar wording a couple times and it is a little ambiguous? Does "does not have" mean a superpolynomial quantum lower bound has been discovered for this algorithm (or is there a reduction to some other important conjectured complexity theorem)? Or is it just that a polynomial algorithm has not been discovered yet?
could not find full text for free unfortunately
Regardless, I found the anecdotes entertaining.
???
if you've already read your three free articles, https://archive.is/VcIcJ
thought it was an interesting perspective, though it's a bit naive or maybe idealistic and it glosses over a lot of the negative harms of some technologies (and factors, economic and otherwise, that motivate these kinds of technologies).
"Where the heck" did you see the above poster mention restricted?
Considering that Scott works in theoretical quantum complexity theory, I highly doubt that he reviewed this experimental quantum error correction paper.
> Only a very small minority of people have careers or relationships worth emulating, and they should be setting examples for everyone else to aspire to.
Of those that have relationships worth emulating I doubt they are parasocially broadcasting it for the world to see. To the contrary, most of these images that you see on social media are heavily curated and manicured and don't really reflect reality.