In his paper "The Argument against Quantum Computers, the Quantum Laws of Nature, and Google’s Supremacy Claims", Gil Kalai argues that quantum advantage will never be reached. For NISQ devices in particular, he argues that for a large variety of noise, the correlation between the ideal distribution and the noised one converges to $0$, meaning that the results are effectively unusable.
A common counter-argument is the Threshold theorem, which states that for an acceptable level of noise, we can error-correct a Quantum Computer. Gil Kalai however argues that:
At the center of my analysis is a computational complexity argument stating that $\gamma<\delta$
- $\gamma$ is the rate of noise required for quantum advantage, and
- $\delta$ is the rate of noise that can realistically be achieved.
Thus, Gil Kalai states that the Threshold Theorem will never be applied in practice, that the level of noise in NISQ devices will always be higher that the aforementioned threshold.
However, last year, the Google Quantum AI team published "Suppressing quantum errors by scaling a surface code logical qubit", where they show, from my understanding, that they managed to perform error-correction at threshold, meaning that correcting a Quantum Computer does not add more errors than it corrects.
Is this paper enough to invalidate all of Gil Kalai's arguments? For instance, does the fact that NISQ-generated distributions can be approximated by low-degree polynomials still hold, or is it linked to the previous argument and thus rendered void?
I don't think there has been a follow-up bu Gil Kalai on this paper, though I may have missed it.