The microblog: 2021.05.15 16:58:02

2021.05.15 16:58:02 (1393581444916604929) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Aram Harrow (@quantum_aram)" (1393576055722717184):

Still having trouble figuring out whether you're disputing @preskill admitting that his "quantum supremacy" term "exacerbates the already overhyped reporting on the status of quantum technology". It's hard to see how you can claim the term isn't deceptive without addressing this.


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.

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?

2021.05.15 16:36:37 (1393576055722717184) from "Aram Harrow (@quantum_aram)":

I'm sure it makes it sounds more colorful than "hard-to-simulate programmable quantum dynamics" so in that sense may facilitate hype. It is not deceptive. I think scientists have a responsibility to communicate clearly and not overhype, but not to avoid vivid language.