Microsoft quantum breakthrough claims labelled 'unreliable' and 'essentially fraudulent'
(2025/03/12)
- Reference: 1741764853
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/03/12/microsoft_majorana_quantum_claims_overshadowed/
- Source link:
Microsoft's claim of having made quantum computing breakthroughs has attracted strong criticism from scientists, but the software giant says it’s work is sound – and it will soon reveal data that proves it.
Redmond’s quantum claims were made in February when it [1]announced its in-house boffins had created "the world’s first topoconductor, a breakthrough type of material which can observe and control Majorana particles to produce more reliable and scalable qubits, which are the building blocks for quantum computers."
This is a piece of alleged technology based on basic physics that has not been established
The biz showed off a quantum chip called Majorana 1, based on a “Topological Core architecture,” which it said could power future quantum computers that pack a million qubits. Quantum computers with even a few hundred qubits are promised to be so powerful that the device you’re reading this on might as well be a broken abacus.
Microsoft’s claims were astounding because Majorana particles were first theorized in 1937 but detecting them has proved difficult. Yet Microsoft told the world it not only observed Majorana particles but had learned how to put them to work in a machine packing eight topological qubits.
Unimpressed boffins
Microsoft has made big claims about Majorana particles before, but it didn’t end well: In 2021 Redmond’s researchers [2]retracted a 2018 paper in which they claimed to have detected the particles.
Shortly after Microsoft's recent announcement, scientists expressed concern that the claims in the company’s paper, [3]published in Nature , lacked important details.
Microsoft researcher Chetan Nayak has reaffirmed the company's claims and [4]pointed out that the paper was submitted in March 2024 and published in February 2025. In the intervening months he said Microsoft has made even more progress that he will discuss at an American Physical Society (APS) [5]meeting scheduled for next week in California.
[6]
While the quantum world waits for that update, critics have voiced their concerns about Microsoft’s paper.
[7]
[8]
Henry Legg, a lecturer in theoretical physics at the University of St Andrews in the UK, who recently published a [9]a preprint critique that argues the software giant’s work “is not reliable and must be revisited.”
Vincent Mourik, an experimental physicist with at German national research organization Forschungszentrum Jülich, and by Sergey Frolov, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Pittsburgh in the US, used [10]YouTube to criticize “distractions caused by unreliable scientific claims from Microsoft Quantum.”
'Essentially fraudulent'
Frolov went even further when discussing the matter with The Register .
"These concerns go back quite a number of years so [the community reaction] hasn't just been triggered by this announcement per se," Frolov told The Register . "It was just made in such a dramatic way that it, I guess, triggered a reaction but [it hasn't altered] the underlying sort of understanding that this is essentially a fraudulent project."
[11]
Asked to elaborate on that characterization, Frolov said: "This is a piece of alleged technology that is based on basic physics that has not been established. So this is a pretty big problem."
There is a lot of quantum computing science to and we look forward to sharing our results
Frolov also claimed that Microsoft has already shared data with select researchers a few weeks ago, ahead of next week’s APS meeting, and that those invited to hear more did not come away more confident about Microsoft’s claims.
"I was not there but I spoke with a few people that were … and people were not impressed and there was a lot of criticism," he said.
He thinks next week’s APS meeting won’t settle the matter, for two reasons.
One is that he thinks Microsoft got the science wrong
[12]
"So we kind of know that it's not going to be a concern-killer presentation, based on that [private briefing to select scientists]," Frolov said. "And as a physicist, there's just absolutely no way that qubit that they're claiming can work because a topological qubit requires Majorana and without Majorana you cannot have it.
"If all your Majorana results are scrutinized and criticized, there is just absolutely no way this is going to be a topological qubit. That leaves kind-of one option, that it's … an unreliable presentation. And that's why I say fraud because at this point I'm out of other words to use."
Meeting morass
His other reason is that he thinks the format of next week’s APS meeting won’t allow for scrutiny of Microsoft’s claims. In a [13]a letter to the APS he criticizes organizers for not inviting critics of Microsoft’s to deliver a talk.
The letter goes on to challenge APS to disclose payments received from Microsoft, and to notify attendees of the [14]APS Global Physics Summit about community concerns regarding the software giant’s claims.
He also wants Microsoft to share comprehensive data about its research, to facilitate corrections if needed.
APS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Unimpressive experiments
Legg’s beef with Microsoft’s claims is his view that they rely on tests that don’t work.
"There's many problems with this … so-called Topological Gap Protocol," the University of St Andrews lecturer explained. "And ultimately it doesn't give any information about the actual physics that's going on in these devices. It ends up that it's sensitive to things like measurement ranges.”
That matters because, in Legg’s telling, Microsoft’s topological claims rest on a 2023 [15]a paper by company researchers published in the journal Physical Review B (PRB).
Legg thinks that older paper is “the basis for all of these [new] claims” but that the two pieces of research use different measurement ranges for reasons that isn’t explained in Microsoft’s latest research.
[16]Worry not. China's on the line saying AGI still a long way off
[17]AWS unboxes quantum cat qubit kit called Ocelot
[18]Google exec sees enterprise quantum app on closer horizon
[19]Nvidia plots Quantum Day at GTC 2025 – for tech it called a distant dream
Legg is also concerned that code used in the protocol described in the older PRB paper differs from code in Microsoft’s latest research. The software giant’s changing definition of “topological” also worries him.
"They had the definition of topological and then they adjusted it," he said. "They diluted it basically to something which is almost meaningless and certainly meaningless when it comes to constructing a topological qubit."
The issue Microsoft faces, Legg explained, is similar to the issue that caused company researchers to retract their 2018 paper – which he claims became necessary because the behavior it described wasn’t evidence of Majorana particles, just a description of disorder.
"So the point is that the systems that they're looking at are still just as disordered, there's no obvious improvement in the quality of the devices.
"The only improvement there has been is in the quality of the PR campaign, or certainly the level of the claims that they're making. And I would say almost everyone in the field agrees with that."
The Empire Strikes Back
Except Microsoft. Asked to respond to Legg's paper, a Microsoft spokesperson provided this comment from Nayak: "There is a century-old scientific process established by the American Physical Society for resolving disputes. Comments and author responses are reviewed by referees in the journal and eventually published for the benefit of readers. We have not been contacted by the PRB [Physical Review B] editors to respond to Legg's comment. When we are, we will provide an official response."
Nayak challenged Legg's argument as an attack on a false straw man and summarized his responses thus.
Protocol vs. Code : Legg claims there's a difference between our described protocol and the implemented code. This is incorrect, so this is a non-issue.
Measurement Ranges : He accuses us of manipulating measurement ranges to get desired outcomes. This is false. The ranges come from an initial scan we describe, and we always analyze the full data.
Experimental vs. Simulated Data : He points out a minor difference in how we analyze experimental and simulated data. This does not affect our results.
Topological Regime Requirement : He complains that we relaxed the requirement for how deep into the topological regime the system needs to be. The original requirement was stated in an unpublished manuscript. In our published paper "InAs-Al Hybrid....", we clearly stated that we instead adopted a widely accepted minimal definition of topological which has appeared in multiple published works by a number of independent academic groups.
A Microsoft spokesperson offered a lengthier comment:
This is a very exciting time for quantum computing. Utility-scale quantum computers are just years away, not decades. To enable this future, Microsoft is building an error-corrected, utility-scale quantum computer based on a compact superconducting topological qubit architecture. For the last 20 plus years we have been collaborating with leading researchers and scientists worldwide to bring this vision to life. We recently achieved two very important milestones.
The first was validation of our approach from DARPA, and the second was our unveiling of the Majorana 1 chip, a significant breakthrough for us and the industry.
Others are working to bring this same vision to life, but with different approaches. This is what makes science fun.
Some in the field believe an alternative approach is the right one to take and have invested significant time and resources into their methods. We understand why they would want to advocate for their approach.
Discourse and skepticism are all part of the scientific process. That is why we are dedicated to the continued open publication of our research, so that everyone can build on what others have discovered and learned. In fact, we brought over 100 scientists and physicists together recently to spend the day with us going over our research.
Following our announcement, we have received some general questions about our methodology. While the Nature paper outlined our approach, it does not speak to our progress. The Nature paper was submitted on March 5, 2024, and published on February 19, 2025.
Almost an entire year has passed, and during that time tremendous progress has occurred. For example, since our submission on March 5, 2024, we have fabricated a two-sided tetron and both nanowires were tuned into the topological phase via the topological gap protocol. This is the topological qubit configuration: there are 4 Majorana zero modes (MZMs), one at each end of each topological nanowire. We have performed both Z and X measurements. These are the basic native operations in a measurement-based topological qubit.
There is a lot of science to explain when it comes to quantum computing, and in the coming weeks and months, we look forward to sharing our results along with additional data behind the science that is turning our 20 plus year vision for quantum computing into a tangible reality.
The APS Global Physics Summit begins Sunday, March 16th. Attendees may want to bring popcorn. ®
Get our [20]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/19/microsoft_majorana_1_chip/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/09/quantum_paper_withdrawn/
[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08445-2
[4] https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8669#comment-2003328
[5] https://summit.aps.org/
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Z9FpW8-50EBNIS38RKsUiwAAAYA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z9FpW8-50EBNIS38RKsUiwAAAYA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z9FpW8-50EBNIS38RKsUiwAAAYA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.19560
[10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ag-L3hZiXo
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z9FpW8-50EBNIS38RKsUiwAAAYA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z9FpW8-50EBNIS38RKsUiwAAAYA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vincent-mourik-8188379_why-is-aps-suppressing-criticism-of-the-recent-activity-7304981873649242112-m7DB/
[14] https://summit.aps.org/
[15] https://journals.aps.org/prb/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevB.107.245423
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/05/boffins_from_china_calculate_agi/
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/27/aws_unboxes_quantum_cat_qubit/
[18] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/06/google_quantum_apps/
[19] https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/15/nvidia_quantum_day_gtc/
[20] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Redmond’s quantum claims were made in February when it [1]announced its in-house boffins had created "the world’s first topoconductor, a breakthrough type of material which can observe and control Majorana particles to produce more reliable and scalable qubits, which are the building blocks for quantum computers."
This is a piece of alleged technology based on basic physics that has not been established
The biz showed off a quantum chip called Majorana 1, based on a “Topological Core architecture,” which it said could power future quantum computers that pack a million qubits. Quantum computers with even a few hundred qubits are promised to be so powerful that the device you’re reading this on might as well be a broken abacus.
Microsoft’s claims were astounding because Majorana particles were first theorized in 1937 but detecting them has proved difficult. Yet Microsoft told the world it not only observed Majorana particles but had learned how to put them to work in a machine packing eight topological qubits.
Unimpressed boffins
Microsoft has made big claims about Majorana particles before, but it didn’t end well: In 2021 Redmond’s researchers [2]retracted a 2018 paper in which they claimed to have detected the particles.
Shortly after Microsoft's recent announcement, scientists expressed concern that the claims in the company’s paper, [3]published in Nature , lacked important details.
Microsoft researcher Chetan Nayak has reaffirmed the company's claims and [4]pointed out that the paper was submitted in March 2024 and published in February 2025. In the intervening months he said Microsoft has made even more progress that he will discuss at an American Physical Society (APS) [5]meeting scheduled for next week in California.
[6]
While the quantum world waits for that update, critics have voiced their concerns about Microsoft’s paper.
[7]
[8]
Henry Legg, a lecturer in theoretical physics at the University of St Andrews in the UK, who recently published a [9]a preprint critique that argues the software giant’s work “is not reliable and must be revisited.”
Vincent Mourik, an experimental physicist with at German national research organization Forschungszentrum Jülich, and by Sergey Frolov, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Pittsburgh in the US, used [10]YouTube to criticize “distractions caused by unreliable scientific claims from Microsoft Quantum.”
'Essentially fraudulent'
Frolov went even further when discussing the matter with The Register .
"These concerns go back quite a number of years so [the community reaction] hasn't just been triggered by this announcement per se," Frolov told The Register . "It was just made in such a dramatic way that it, I guess, triggered a reaction but [it hasn't altered] the underlying sort of understanding that this is essentially a fraudulent project."
[11]
Asked to elaborate on that characterization, Frolov said: "This is a piece of alleged technology that is based on basic physics that has not been established. So this is a pretty big problem."
There is a lot of quantum computing science to and we look forward to sharing our results
Frolov also claimed that Microsoft has already shared data with select researchers a few weeks ago, ahead of next week’s APS meeting, and that those invited to hear more did not come away more confident about Microsoft’s claims.
"I was not there but I spoke with a few people that were … and people were not impressed and there was a lot of criticism," he said.
He thinks next week’s APS meeting won’t settle the matter, for two reasons.
One is that he thinks Microsoft got the science wrong
[12]
"So we kind of know that it's not going to be a concern-killer presentation, based on that [private briefing to select scientists]," Frolov said. "And as a physicist, there's just absolutely no way that qubit that they're claiming can work because a topological qubit requires Majorana and without Majorana you cannot have it.
"If all your Majorana results are scrutinized and criticized, there is just absolutely no way this is going to be a topological qubit. That leaves kind-of one option, that it's … an unreliable presentation. And that's why I say fraud because at this point I'm out of other words to use."
Meeting morass
His other reason is that he thinks the format of next week’s APS meeting won’t allow for scrutiny of Microsoft’s claims. In a [13]a letter to the APS he criticizes organizers for not inviting critics of Microsoft’s to deliver a talk.
The letter goes on to challenge APS to disclose payments received from Microsoft, and to notify attendees of the [14]APS Global Physics Summit about community concerns regarding the software giant’s claims.
He also wants Microsoft to share comprehensive data about its research, to facilitate corrections if needed.
APS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Unimpressive experiments
Legg’s beef with Microsoft’s claims is his view that they rely on tests that don’t work.
"There's many problems with this … so-called Topological Gap Protocol," the University of St Andrews lecturer explained. "And ultimately it doesn't give any information about the actual physics that's going on in these devices. It ends up that it's sensitive to things like measurement ranges.”
That matters because, in Legg’s telling, Microsoft’s topological claims rest on a 2023 [15]a paper by company researchers published in the journal Physical Review B (PRB).
Legg thinks that older paper is “the basis for all of these [new] claims” but that the two pieces of research use different measurement ranges for reasons that isn’t explained in Microsoft’s latest research.
[16]Worry not. China's on the line saying AGI still a long way off
[17]AWS unboxes quantum cat qubit kit called Ocelot
[18]Google exec sees enterprise quantum app on closer horizon
[19]Nvidia plots Quantum Day at GTC 2025 – for tech it called a distant dream
Legg is also concerned that code used in the protocol described in the older PRB paper differs from code in Microsoft’s latest research. The software giant’s changing definition of “topological” also worries him.
"They had the definition of topological and then they adjusted it," he said. "They diluted it basically to something which is almost meaningless and certainly meaningless when it comes to constructing a topological qubit."
The issue Microsoft faces, Legg explained, is similar to the issue that caused company researchers to retract their 2018 paper – which he claims became necessary because the behavior it described wasn’t evidence of Majorana particles, just a description of disorder.
"So the point is that the systems that they're looking at are still just as disordered, there's no obvious improvement in the quality of the devices.
"The only improvement there has been is in the quality of the PR campaign, or certainly the level of the claims that they're making. And I would say almost everyone in the field agrees with that."
The Empire Strikes Back
Except Microsoft. Asked to respond to Legg's paper, a Microsoft spokesperson provided this comment from Nayak: "There is a century-old scientific process established by the American Physical Society for resolving disputes. Comments and author responses are reviewed by referees in the journal and eventually published for the benefit of readers. We have not been contacted by the PRB [Physical Review B] editors to respond to Legg's comment. When we are, we will provide an official response."
Nayak challenged Legg's argument as an attack on a false straw man and summarized his responses thus.
Protocol vs. Code : Legg claims there's a difference between our described protocol and the implemented code. This is incorrect, so this is a non-issue.
Measurement Ranges : He accuses us of manipulating measurement ranges to get desired outcomes. This is false. The ranges come from an initial scan we describe, and we always analyze the full data.
Experimental vs. Simulated Data : He points out a minor difference in how we analyze experimental and simulated data. This does not affect our results.
Topological Regime Requirement : He complains that we relaxed the requirement for how deep into the topological regime the system needs to be. The original requirement was stated in an unpublished manuscript. In our published paper "InAs-Al Hybrid....", we clearly stated that we instead adopted a widely accepted minimal definition of topological which has appeared in multiple published works by a number of independent academic groups.
A Microsoft spokesperson offered a lengthier comment:
This is a very exciting time for quantum computing. Utility-scale quantum computers are just years away, not decades. To enable this future, Microsoft is building an error-corrected, utility-scale quantum computer based on a compact superconducting topological qubit architecture. For the last 20 plus years we have been collaborating with leading researchers and scientists worldwide to bring this vision to life. We recently achieved two very important milestones.
The first was validation of our approach from DARPA, and the second was our unveiling of the Majorana 1 chip, a significant breakthrough for us and the industry.
Others are working to bring this same vision to life, but with different approaches. This is what makes science fun.
Some in the field believe an alternative approach is the right one to take and have invested significant time and resources into their methods. We understand why they would want to advocate for their approach.
Discourse and skepticism are all part of the scientific process. That is why we are dedicated to the continued open publication of our research, so that everyone can build on what others have discovered and learned. In fact, we brought over 100 scientists and physicists together recently to spend the day with us going over our research.
Following our announcement, we have received some general questions about our methodology. While the Nature paper outlined our approach, it does not speak to our progress. The Nature paper was submitted on March 5, 2024, and published on February 19, 2025.
Almost an entire year has passed, and during that time tremendous progress has occurred. For example, since our submission on March 5, 2024, we have fabricated a two-sided tetron and both nanowires were tuned into the topological phase via the topological gap protocol. This is the topological qubit configuration: there are 4 Majorana zero modes (MZMs), one at each end of each topological nanowire. We have performed both Z and X measurements. These are the basic native operations in a measurement-based topological qubit.
There is a lot of science to explain when it comes to quantum computing, and in the coming weeks and months, we look forward to sharing our results along with additional data behind the science that is turning our 20 plus year vision for quantum computing into a tangible reality.
The APS Global Physics Summit begins Sunday, March 16th. Attendees may want to bring popcorn. ®
Get our [20]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/19/microsoft_majorana_1_chip/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/09/quantum_paper_withdrawn/
[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08445-2
[4] https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8669#comment-2003328
[5] https://summit.aps.org/
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Z9FpW8-50EBNIS38RKsUiwAAAYA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z9FpW8-50EBNIS38RKsUiwAAAYA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z9FpW8-50EBNIS38RKsUiwAAAYA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.19560
[10] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ag-L3hZiXo
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Z9FpW8-50EBNIS38RKsUiwAAAYA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Z9FpW8-50EBNIS38RKsUiwAAAYA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vincent-mourik-8188379_why-is-aps-suppressing-criticism-of-the-recent-activity-7304981873649242112-m7DB/
[14] https://summit.aps.org/
[15] https://journals.aps.org/prb/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevB.107.245423
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/05/boffins_from_china_calculate_agi/
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/27/aws_unboxes_quantum_cat_qubit/
[18] https://www.theregister.com/2025/02/06/google_quantum_apps/
[19] https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/15/nvidia_quantum_day_gtc/
[20] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Faced with a choice here
Anonymous Coward
Add in the Trump tariff shenanigans and maybe it's time to finaly wholesale remove that unproductive and seriously unsecure cancer from IT.
Nah, we can but dream. It would be so good if we put a tariff on Microsoft. And on the few Tesla's that are still sold, of course. 100% seems fair for the latter.
In other news...
Neil Barnes
How's that cold fusion doing?
Caveat: I am not a physicist; I don't even play one on TV.
Re: In other news...
Bebu sa Ware
How's that cold fusion doing?
It's being packaged with room temperature superconductors, this Majorana† topoconductor and a good lashing of AI.
† [1]Ettore Majorana had interesting political affiliations not unlike those of our King DoGE.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Majorana
original_rwg
I kept reading Majorana as Marijuana....
I'm off for a lie down...
Dizzy Dwarf
And an entire pack of Jaffa Cakes.
Anonymous Coward
Removing my bias hat this is tricky.
How do you prove you have done something that has never been done? How do you design a test to prove something that has never been done? You also have to do that without giving away fully how you actually did it.
I'm no rocket surgeon but I can see both sides of the coin here. I think the solution would be to have standard ranges on the tests to remove ambiguity. Let's say on the off chance Microsoft are this far ahead we do need to know because from my very limited understanding it will change everything in computing and beyond.
ChoHag
> How do you prove you have done something that has never been done?
Openly, not hiding behind a guy fawkes mask data obfuscation.
...but the software giant says it’s work is sound...
Kane
It's true! Copilot told us so!
'unreliable' and 'essentially fraudulent'
Mentat74
So... just like Windows 11 then...
Re: 'unreliable' and 'essentially fraudulent'
seven of five
Nope, "malvolent" is missing.
Popcorn may be required
Michael H.F. Wilkinson
I have been following Majorana fermion claims for quite a while, and I have yet to see convincing evidence. As I understand it, the Majorana fermion is more properly considered a quantum state than a fundamental particle (though I may be wrong, it is years since I took my courses in quantum mechanics), and this adds to the confusion. As the Majorana fermion is considered to be neutral and its own anti-"particle", I am given to wonder if it doesn't self annihilate easily. Whether or not it exists at all, it is certainly elusive, and the jury is still very much out on this one. The evidence will have to be pretty solid before such a huge claim can be believed.
I will follow this saga as it unfolds.
Linkedin influencers deleting like crazy
cookiecutter
As ever the tech press and normal press are so desperate for news they'll just pump out any old shite that the PR teams puke out to get a "story"
Watch the number of "THIS IS AWESOME!!!" Posts on linkedin being deleted.
Majorana particles exist, really!
IanRS
The wave function of a particle and its anti-particle are complex conjugates of each other, so it a Majorana fermion is its own anti-particle then it can only be real. If is real then it is exists.
This is known as proof through grammatical misunderstanding.
Faced with a choice here
...between a number of eminent scientists, and a big sh*tbag corporation who are hiding their claimed evidence, and whose premier product is a bug addled, data-grabbing, overly ambitious and perennialy under achieving operating system. Hmmm, it's difficult this one.
Perhaps it's just Microsoft getting in early to establish the next snake-oil to support their share price when the AI bubble goes "pop".