2021.05.15 20:31:01 (1393635041540857863) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Aram Harrow (@quantum_aram)" (1393596048057241601):
Thanks for the clarification. What level of evidence would convince you that the word "supremacy" is making politicians throw more money at quantum technology than they would otherwise? (Maybe I should emphasize that "distorting everything" is setting the deception bar too high.)
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.
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 17:54:08 (1393595560989544448) from "Aram Harrow (@quantum_aram)":
Maybe there's some explanation I haven't seen, but no, right now, I am not convinced that the term makes the reporting worse by itself. Reporters are adults who know what they are doing. I've spoken to reporters who've done a great job, and these are long conversations in which
2021.05.15 17:56:04 (1393596048057241601) from "Aram Harrow (@quantum_aram)", replying to "Aram Harrow (@quantum_aram)" (1393595560989544448):
one word is not distorting everything. The one time that happened was when an editor overruled a writer and wanted to leave in that entanglement can signal instantly, over my objections. They ended with a muddled sentence could be viewed as suggesting this.