Serving the Quantitative Finance Community
Quantum computer: soon ?
it's no longer just undercover cops pretending to be 13 year olds on the internet
Quantum computer: soon ?
QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperit's no longer just undercover cops pretending to be 13 year olds on the internetQuoteA programme that convinced humans that it was a 13-year-old boy has become the first computer ever to pass the Turing Test. I heard that one of the judges showed up at the lab with a 6 pack and a box of condomsThey should use the computer on Dateline Predator
Quantum computer: soon ?
Quantum Computer Performs Artificial Intelligence Task
-
- Cuchulainn
- Posts: 64120
- Joined:
- Location: Drosophila melanogaster
- Contact:
Re: Quantum computer: soon ?
Blow for Delft's quest for quantum computer
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2021/02/08/de ... t-a4030961
Confirmation bias
But the Nature article is not being withdrawn because of this advancing insight, Tewari says. "The reason is a problem processing the measurements," he says. “The authors did not mention in 2018 that a large part of their measurements show no evidence for majoranas. They focused on the small portion of the measurements that may contain evidence for the particles. Not a problem in itself - these are difficult measurements - but they should have stated this clearly in the Nature article. ”
“The 2018 Nature article was written strongly based on the reasoning 'they are majoranas and here is the evidence', so it is out of balance,” says Jan van Ruitenbeek, professor of experimental physics at Leiden University and not involved in the research. “Only at the end of the article are other explanations for the measurements briefly discussed and these are quickly dismissed. Compare it to a crime in which three suspects are on the screen, but two quickly disappear into the background and all the investigation focuses on one of the suspects. ”
Another sanity clause at the end.
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2021/02/08/de ... t-a4030961
Confirmation bias
But the Nature article is not being withdrawn because of this advancing insight, Tewari says. "The reason is a problem processing the measurements," he says. “The authors did not mention in 2018 that a large part of their measurements show no evidence for majoranas. They focused on the small portion of the measurements that may contain evidence for the particles. Not a problem in itself - these are difficult measurements - but they should have stated this clearly in the Nature article. ”
“The 2018 Nature article was written strongly based on the reasoning 'they are majoranas and here is the evidence', so it is out of balance,” says Jan van Ruitenbeek, professor of experimental physics at Leiden University and not involved in the research. “Only at the end of the article are other explanations for the measurements briefly discussed and these are quickly dismissed. Compare it to a crime in which three suspects are on the screen, but two quickly disappear into the background and all the investigation focuses on one of the suspects. ”
Another sanity clause at the end.
| ABOUT WILMOTT |
Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...
| JOBS BOARD |
Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...