> Anyone can write about quantum computers as if they are remotely qualified
He's the quantum guy. [^2]
You're applying classical computing intuitions (where verification is indeed usually much faster than computation) to quantum computing, where this relationship doesn't necessarily hold. The fact that verification can be as hard as computation in quantum computing is actually a major challenge that Aaronson has written about extensively.
n.b. I've been here 15 years but sometimes have to take a step back and adjust my approach, because I can use this as a quick break to let out frustration with something else. When I do, I find the HN guidelines helpful, almost a joy. [^1] They're written conversationally and are more meditations than rules.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. [...] Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
"Other threads in these comments talk about some rick and morty multiverse type of thing, just stay on the sidelines guys"
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
"Anybody can write about quantum computers as if they are remotely qualified"
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
From Aaronson's actual post:
"...for the exact same reason why this quantum computation would take ~10^25 years for a classical computer to simulate, it would also take ~10^25 years for a classical computer to directly verify the quantum computer's results!!"
He goes on: "...this is why I've been obsessing for years about the need to design efficiently verifiable near-term quantum supremacy experiments."
• Won multiple Best Student Paper Awards:
- Danny Lewin Best Paper at [STOC](https://www.sigact.org/prizes/student.html) for quantum computing proofs in local search (2004)
- Best Paper at [Complexity Conference](https://computationalcomplexity.org/conferences.php) for quantum advice limitations (2004)
- Best Paper at Complexity Conference for quantum certificate complexity (2003)
I can see that there could be an argument for the edge cases where p=np is true could precisely be this new type of computing.
Re: MWI, author seems to have dismissed the relevancy of such discussion anyways, it just seems to be one of those pop topics that comes up whenever possible and is accessible to the laymen (like discussions about gender popping up when a random sex gene discovery pops up)
