https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1612.05903/Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.enMon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMThttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21044364urn:hackerpapers:mention:1612.05903:21044364Sun, 22 Sep 2019 22:22:54 GMT<p>No, the distribution is thought to be hard for any classical algorithm (this is still being worked on - there are still ongoing theory development for showing it is harder and harder), and by extension, any classical process. Yes, the problem is very contrived - the distribution being sampled is given by the distribution you get from sampling from a randomly sampled quantum circuit. Of course this is easy on a quantum computer because you can just throw on the randomly chosen gates and measure it. I don&#x27;t think it will be very useful in a application sense. This problem was designed for the…</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1612.05903/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>quant-phhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21044196urn:hackerpapers:mention:1612.05903:21044196Sun, 22 Sep 2019 21:50:45 GMT<p>I&#x27;m not an expert, but you are correct in that there is no error correction here, and error correction is still a long way off. Around 2016, realizing that running useful quantum algorithms was a long way away and there needed to be earlier roadmarks for quantum devices to signal the progress, the problem of &quot;quantum supremacy&quot; was introduced. The goal is to find the problem with the _easiest_ demonstrable quantum speedup (regardless of usefulness). They proposed a particular sampling problem (running a randomly chosen quantum circuit that has output with a positive probability on many…</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1612.05903/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>quant-ph