Fiona Thompson

There should be no misunderstanding that this is utter and complete corporate BS. No quantum computers are needed for whatever they did in this work. It's a shame to see IBM depart from their fact-based approach. See Scott Aaronson's blog post: scottaaronson.blog?p=9170

If it's at all comforting, I spent most of the evening walking around, explaining what qubits are and why QC isn't going to help their health companies – agreed it has very little to do with IQC, but at least I think (/hope) some hype was crushed and attendees learned something!

The more I think about it, the more cynical I am about making press releases about a certain claim coincide with a Nature paper that claims something materially different. Even if they end up factually correct, this is the heart of the issue with mixing capital interests and science

No, they didn't.

Today I was asked in an interview about folks who use the weirdness of ✨quantum✨ to hawk pseudoscience junk. I think that kind of grift proliferates because of a big misunderstanding a lot of folks have about quantum mechanics, which is not really their fault!
🧵