Like in good suspense stories, I could not stop reading this fascinating article @nytimes @CadeMetz telling the winding paths of an intellectual community of free thinkers in the Silicon Valley, led by a pseudonymous protected and mysterious psychiatrist https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-codex-rationalists.html

Quantum world @GoogleAI @IBMResearch @meetIQM will have plenty of opportunities to explore in software applications & architecture designs with Latin American talent, boosting business with local visionaries @A_Aspuru_Guzik @aperdomoortiz @pnussen @cientificospe @CientificoenEsp https://twitter.com/quantumdaily/status/1368217804151914503

@gppcarleo Exactly, it is not adding qubits to square lattices & nearest-neighbor coupling. There, a smart classical mapping may create eternal draw. Quantum computers may turn useful now if we go beyond digital mapping of problems on qubits & use creative architecture geometries/topologies

@KikeSolanoPhys Agreed...! I was referring to some debates I have seen in the context of digital simulation stating we should "just add a few qubits" in the experiment to be "quantum supreme again", but it's clear that it is not going to be enough if you don't improve fidelities as well, etc...

@KikeSolanoPhys I guess what is meant by "overlooked" is, that seminal work on DQS has swept the obvious exponential accumulation of gate errors with circuit depth under the digital idealization carpet. Please correct me if I'm wrong. See also this comic on Q-philosophers I once made:

I disagree with the "overlooked" statement, it is valid only for unimaginative NISQ architectures. If we accept "useless" quantum supremacy as valid in Classical vs. Quantum debate, almost any quantum experiment outperforms classical computers since long. Examples abound in labs. https://twitter.com/gppcarleo/status/1368149227579322368

This is core to co-design principles. A co-design classical computer beats co-design quantum computer, until the latter makes a leap forward and so on. Evidently, Co-Design Quantum Computers will have last word. Let us keep working together for it @meetIQM @GoogleAI @IBMResearch https://twitter.com/stephansroche/status/1367750581302005761

Metaphysics on Physics & Business
(1) There is no cosmological curse on humans calling a problem Useless, 100 qubits suffice, or Useful, millions of qubits needed.
(2) Remove spell: go beyond digital mapping of problems on qubits & square lattices with nearest-neighbor couplings.

@KikeSolanoPhys @Harvard This paper has some evidence but ours is a much deeper study on the topic arriving a similar conclusion with a evolutionary study looking at coherence of ancestors : https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acscentsci.7b00269 1/2

In QUEBS 2010 @Harvard @A_Aspuru_Guzik, I claimed in a panel that existence of a quantum model matching observed biological effects is not a proof of quantumness. It is mandatory to prove no classical model suffice. This paper makes quantumness unnecessary https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.02604