Quantum Computing Expert Explains One Concept in 5 Levels of Difficulty | WIRED

What people said

Recommends mattferderer · 2019-02 · Hacker News · on “Quantum Computing, Capabilities and Limits: An Interview with Scott Aaronson”

Try this video - [this video] I found it easy to comprehend. It starts explaining to a child & works its way up to a doctorate level.

Recommends stewdio · 2020-04 · Hacker News · on “Show HN: Quantum JavaScript”

I’ve begun to put together useful resources for learning more here: [LINK] I’d like to really flesh out that page; I’ve now come across so many folks that are amazing at explaining this stuff... It’s just a time crunch to juggle all this as you might imagine ;) These two videos in particular helped me get started: 1. What is a physical quantum computer? [this video] 2. How might one compute using it? [LINK]

Cites brownbat · 2019-01 · Hacker News · on “The Tsetlin Machine outperforms neural networks”

What constitutes reasonable? Here's an example of someone explaining something to five different levels of audiences. [this video] None of these approaches are prima facie "unreasonable." But if you get the wrong level it won't feel useful. I don't think it's crazy to have open teaching discussions on HN, I think you lay out a fair hope that someone can break something down here. But I'm just not sure which level you're looking for. Precision and simplicity are often competing constraints.

Cites mattmcknight · 2019-11 · Hacker News · on “Stop Explaining Black Box Models for High Stakes Decisions”

"sparsity is a useful measure of interpretability, since humans can handle at most 7±2 cognitive entities at once " If you are going to limit models to 9 features, or 9 combinations of features, or 9 rules, models are not going to work as well. This just seems like a very weak argument to introduce. "A black box model is either a function that is too complicated for any human to comprehend, or a function that is proprietary" These seem like two very different things. A false equivalence is then made with many arguments against proprietary models being made as if they apply to complex models. "It is a myth that there is necessarily a trade-off between accuracy and interpretability....However,

Cites Jun8 · 2021-11 · Hacker News · on “Scott Aaronson, when reached for comment, said”

Here are few thoughts on Aaranson's comments: 1) I have absolutely zero understanding of quantum computers (even after watching this video: [this video] ), though I like to read up on quantum physics. However, it seems to me that I've lived through many "breakthroughs" in this technology. For example, here's an excerpt from a NYT article from 4/28/1998: [LINK] : The discovery has touched off a wave of excitement among physicists and computer scientists and is leading dozens of research centers worldwide to embark on similar experiments heralding the advent of an era of so-called quantum computers, specialized machines that may one day prove thousands or even millions of times faster than today's