Microsoft quantum computing claim still lacks evidence
12 comments
·March 18, 2025kulahan
I was under the impression that Microsoft didn’t say anything incorrect, because upon closer inspection, they didn’t actually say anything of substance - the wording carefully danced around the topic to make it seem as though more had been accomplished in reality, rather than mathematically.
tonyhart7
so they mislead people??? how this is any different than scam??? like legally grey scam
hidelooktropic
I'm not defending Microsoft but "scam" is probably the wrong label for what they did. Nothing was literally sold to anyone. They made a misleading announcement about progress they supposedly made.
latentcall
Yes but people invest money based on these type of announcements. Maybe not a direct scam though
taejavu
> Nothing was literally sold to anyone.
Uhh, yes it was, the claims were literally sold to investors.
monero-xmr
Despite all the hype men in AI at least there are products you can use right now and get value out of.
Quantum computing has been at the same game for at least a decade longer, and nothing useful has ever emerged from the monthly announcements of breakthroughs. I’m not saying they won’t get there eventually but it’s all “greater fool” at this point
kittikitti
There was always a lack of academic peer review from their claims even with the resources of big tech.
gigel82
Microsoft's "quantum computer" just like any other "quantum computer" currently in existence (at least publicly known) can accomplish exactly one and only one task: generate random numbers.
Any other claim "lacks evidence" because it's pure BS fancy-sounding enough to generate continued funding (source: 2nd and 3rd hand across industry and academia).
I find the downvotes on this comment (and many similar ones I made in the past) amusing. Quantum folks (industry and academia), please don't take this personally. I genuinely want quantum computing to become real at some point (just like I want fusion to become real), but today is not that day and you know it :)
sanxiyn
I used to think only proposal for quantum supremacy on near future NISQ devices is random circuit sampling, for which I think "generate random numbers" is a fair summary.
Then someone told me about NISQ-TDA and I can't immediately see why this too is BS. But then it is mysterious to me why not everyone is talking about it. So I am not sure.
As a rule of thumb in QC, largely ignore (or heavily discount) announcements made by academicians (at universities or industry), with CS, complexity theory theoretical physics or maths backgrounds. The more (in)famous they are (Aaroson), the less likely they've made any real progress.
Only experimental solid state physicists and a few EE types know how to build actual circuits and why they don't work.