Hacker News Reader

Comment by dvfjsdhgfv | Hacker News Reader

A very interesting exchange in the comments section. I actually find Vivek Wadhwa's explanations (in the comments) reasonable and convincing. He seems like a honest guy who did the homework and asked the right people (contrary to what he's accused of) BUT he didn't give them the final version of the article to read so that they could correct errors and misunderstandings. This is actually common practice and I hate it - they interview you, you do your best explaining what you're asked, and then you see it in print completely skewed. Technically, sometimes these are your own words, but taken out of context they make little sense or can just be completely wrong. That's the case here, I think.

In light of Vivek Wadhwa's responses, Aaronson's attack seems really petty. I'd love to read a technical summary of all mistakes made by Wadhwa though.

View on HN

Aren't there really basic things that are wrong with Wadhwa's article? For instance, "quantum supremacy" doesn't mean "finally building a quantum computer that is more powerful than any existing supercomputer". For that matter, isn't it really misleading to suggest that a "50 qubit" IBM prototype would even be of the same practical utility as existing computers of any sort, from supercomputers to iWatches?

The cryptographic content of the article gets even worse from there.

I don't think it's "petty" to call out someone as high-profile as Vivek Wadhwa for apparently taking to the pages of the Washington Post to write about a topic he has no conversance with at all.

Here is a direct quote from one of Vivek's comments:

"Please give me 1-2 sentences that your children could understand that explains the possibilities of quantum computing and I will use these in future articles. I acknowledge that I am not as smart as most of you are. I struggle with the concepts of quantum computing, these just don’t make sense to me."

Is there any other field in which someone would profess complete ignorance about a topic, and go on to write about it in a national newspaper anyway?

> Is there any other field in which someone would profess complete ignorance about a topic, and go on to write about it in a national newspaper anyway?

Yes, this happens in every field. This isn't a problem specific to computing, it's specific to journalism.

I don't think so. Yes, journalists make errors in every field, sometimes big ones. What's weird here is the professed ignorance. You won't find a middle east correspondent saying "I'm sorry, could you give me 1-2 sentences on the difference between Sunni and Shia again? I just can't understand this stuff."

"These are two sects of Islam fighting with each other for centuries, mainly over dogmatic issues: all Muslims believe in the Sunnah, but for the Sunni the Sunnah is of primary importance. There are also other differences between the two."

This is what I'd explain to a child, and I believe it's more or less correct. Once they get more interested, they'll be able to consult more precise although less accessible descriptions.

The problem is that this looks like an explanation but it doesn't explain anything, After reading it, the reader is as confused as before. For example, if you replace "Sunnah" with "Jesus" this is an explanation of the difference between Muslim and Christians.

I would take Vivek's line to indicate not "ignorance" but humility, or, possibly, a slightly sarcastic jab at what he may perceive as arrogance from his critics.

There's also a difference between complete ignorance, and the ability to perfectly frame a field's possible impact in language that the general public can understand.

Considering that he is unlikely to be so humbled by this experience to immediately change careers, the wish to improve journalism may be best channeled not at trying to take this guy down, but to actually acquiesce and simply provide him that summary he is asking for. I, for one, would be interested.

They have provided those summaries multiple times over. And Wikipedia has some of them too.

Math, probably.

I take it that theoretical physics tends to get similarly butchered.

I'm honestly hard pressed to find something in his post that IS accurate. I'd also add that he said in the comments that "I’ll start by admitting that I struggle with the concepts of quantum computing." If you don't fundamentally understand quantum computing, maybe you shouldn't write an Opinion piece about the future of quantum computing.

Vivek's polite mic drops in the comment threads were enjoyable to read for the same reason.

He was one of the few people I recall following on Twitter. I was also surprised then by how accessible he was to chat with, as is shown in this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com