2021.05.15 15:16:10 (1393555809024364547) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Aram Harrow (@quantum_aram)" (1393533942725283840):
Clarification question: Are you disputing @preskill's admission that "the word exacerbates the already overhyped reporting on the status of quantum technology"? Or are you claiming that there's no ethical problem with deception unless it's shown to have "significant" influence?
2021.05.14 03:08:49 (1393010375382245381) from "Aram Harrow (@quantum_aram)", replying to "π¬πΊππ½π π’ππΎππΊπππΌππ $8 (@mahdi_tcs)" (1391552783657185287):
I think 'quantum supremacy' is fine. If people are confused about the prospects for scalable useful quantum computers, fiddling with word choices is not going to make a difference.
2021.05.15 08:12:58 (1393449308368740352) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Aram Harrow (@quantum_aram)" (1393010375382245381):
Reality check: @preskill admitted (1) "the word exacerbates the already overhyped reporting on the status of quantum technology"; (2) he "anticipated" this when he introduced the "quantum supremacy" term. This word choice deceives people, including politicians funding the area.
2021.05.15 08:21:45 (1393451519421288448) from Daniel J. Bernstein:
Feigning ignorance of the deception---or saying "How could we possibly talk about a quantum-circuit demo except as quantum supremacy? Quantum dominance has two different definitions in the literature, and quantum superiority has three!"---doesn't make the ethical issue go away.
2021.05.15 13:49:17 (1393533942725283840) from "Aram Harrow (@quantum_aram)":
Other words were certainly possible but we coalesced on one, somewhat arbitrarily, and it was helpful to all use the same one. I really doubt it has a significant effect on the level of inflated expectations, and I don't see any ethical problems with it.