2021.05.15 22:01:33 (1393657826921238529) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Aram Harrow (@quantum_aram)" (1393646938998853636):
You dispute @preskill admitting his "quantum supremacy" term "exacerbates the already overhyped reporting on the status of quantum technology". You claim the term isn't deceptive. Why should it be impossible to say what sort of evidence would convince you that it _is_ deceptive?
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.
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 21:18:17 (1393646938998853636) from "Aram Harrow (@quantum_aram)":
To even ask that question is to realize how impossible it is to answer. All we can try to do is be clear and honest. And it really seems to me like a big milestone when you have a programmable quantum computer that you can't simulate on a laptop. Until recently a TI-85 sufficed.