QuantumQuokka
Quantum Supremacy Using a Programmable Superconducting Processor
Google claims quantum advantage on a specific sampling problem
Published: 12 May 2026 · Updated: 13 July 2026
Read the original sourceWhat the paper says
The dawn of the quantum era! Google achieved what physicists have dreamed of for decades. Classical computing has been dethroned for certain problems.
The Critique
Let's be clear about what was actually demonstrated: sampling random numbers slightly faster than a classical computer, on a problem with zero practical utility. The '10,000 years' claim was immediately challenged — IBM showed classical simulation could achieve similar results in 2.5 days with better algorithms. This isn't supremacy; it's a highly specific benchmark cherry-picked to look impressive. Worse, the quantum system had error rates that would make it useless for any actual computation. It's like claiming you've built a faster car when you actually just rolled a boulder down a hill.
Why It Matters
Quantum computing is important, but misleading benchmarks set unrealistic expectations and misallocate research funding toward PR-friendly milestones rather than practical progress.
What They Missed
No discussion of error correction requirements for useful quantum computation. The supremacy task is completely disconnected from the algorithms (Shor's, Grover's) that would make quantum computers valuable.