Unless you've been living under a rock, you’ve probably noticed the recent proliferation of striking headlines about revolutionary developments in quantum science and technology, amazing recent successes of world-changing quantum startups, and huge government and private investment in quantum computing to capitalize on the imminent second quantum revolution. Being a bit familiar with quantum physics and having recently spent some time trying to understand how the new “quantum industry” operates, I am getting more and more concerned that this recent quantum computing (QC) commotion is a self-perpetuating “intellectual” Ponzi scheme, a bubble, which may sooner or later crash and take legitimate research and innovation efforts down with it. To be sure there are gems in this "quantum technology space," but they are far and few between. Most ventures are questionable at best and are kept afloat by a huge & growing influx of funding, which is not based on any rational thinking or reasonable expectations.
It appears that the US government is pouring money into "quantum" because China seems to be doing the same. China is doing it presumably to compete with the US and EU, all racing to build a QC. The same "logic" probably applies to the major Big Tech companies (company G does it because company M does it and vice versa). Certain deeptech VCs want "quantum" in their portfolio not so much because they believe it will actually work (whatever "work" even means in this context), but to spice up their portfolio with cutting edge quantum stuff. It is often a purely PR move to lure unsuspecting investors, who have no idea what's going on, but don't want to miss out on the world-changing QC efforts.
This creates an unhealthy situation where there is too much easy money poured into a small niche nascent field, where the hype is based on unrealistic and in some cases simply false expectations. Crazy headlines abound: "quantum computing will change life as we know it," "quantum computing will solve global warming," "Quantum computing will revolutionize science and industry," etc etc. These statements are not based on any research or reality at all, they are not even wishful thinking. The number of known quantum algorithms, which promise advantage over classical computation, is just a few (and none of them will "solve global warming" for sure). More importantly, exactly zero such algorithms have been demonstrated in practice so far and the gap between what’s needed to realize them and the currently available hardware is huge, and it's not just a question of numbers. There are qualitative challenges with scaling up, which will likely take decades to resolve (if ever).
Arguably, there have been successes in “quantum simulation.” But here there is a problem with definition: What does “quantum simulation” actually mean? So far, it has mostly involved doing the same experiments, quantum experimentalists have been doing for decades anyway, but renaming the observed phenomena in a quantum-information-friendly way (for example, one can title a paper with identical content as either “Observation of a Mott insulator with [whatever]” or “Quantum simulation of a Mott insulator with [whatever] quantum computer”). The former will result in an unremarkable publication in a modest journal, the latter will be welcomed by a high-impact scientific magazine, receive prominent news coverage and potential investment into the revolutionary quantum simulation technology.
One can argue that there is nothing wrong with this modus operandi, as even if quantum computing does not deliver on its promises verbatim in the visible future (it won't) or never materializes at all, something good will still come out of this activity. This is actually true and there has already been some intellectually lively research activity with a number of exciting ideas (of relevance to fundamental science) spun by the QC hype. But there is also way too much noise and intellectual junk.
The problem is that the aforementioned situation with the wild influx of quantum money creates incentives for people with no relevant background or abilities to jump into the quantum field, and take advantage of it while the quantum bonanza lasts. There are many "quantum" startups and initiatives, which are promoted and often led by individuals with no relevant expertise or education. It is virtually impossible to make a meaningful impact in this high-end scientific research without proper education and experience. A successful company in the "quantum technology space" can not pop up like Facebook or TikTok or a similar dumbed down platform, based on a code written by a college drop out. What's needed is years of education, work, and dedication. But what's going on is that there is an army of "quantum evangelists" (an actual job title by a prominent quantum startup!) who can't write the Schrödinger equation (or maybe don't even know what it is), but promote the fairy tales about the bounties of quantum computing revolution, which is supposedly just around the corner. They raise millions of dollars for their startups, which are guaranteed to go down the drain.
One may counter, by asking: who cares? So, VCs want to fund quantum startups to spice up their portfolio, so why is it a problem if some people get rich in the process and some investors lose money. Taken out of context, it is not a big problem per se, but it seems to produce a "chain reaction" of potentially more damaging consequences. I list some such (presumably undesirable) scenarios:
1. Brain drain of true talent. Apart from unqualified "quantum engineers," who poison the field with junk "science," it is understandable that many actually smart and gifted students, postdocs, and senior academics also want to participate in the quantum bonanza, while it lasts. It appears that in many cases (but not all, as there are certainly QC efforts, which undoubtedly produce top notch fundamental research in basic science), this leads to the situation where the researchers are forced to quit activities, they are actually good at and where they could have made real impact, and join the QC hype with its own weird rules. So, talent migrates from legitimate science into quantum evangelism with no content. Some do make money to be sure, but waste their gift and intellect on selling quantum snake oil (one interesting question to which the author has no answer: what’s “better,” brain drain of true talent into quantum computing or the financial industry? But it may not be a zero-sum game).
2. Quantum Ponzi schemes. Another danger is the appearance of (not only intellectual, but actual “old-fashioned”) Ponzi schemes to sustain QC startups for as long as possible. Unlike Theranos, where the underlying technology was supposed to be simple enough and so it was relatively straightforward to detect fraud, quantum technology is actually complicated. For example, one "service" QC companies can provide is access to their quantum hardware on the cloud hosted by Big Tech companies. Using these platforms, developers can write quantum codes and experiment with quantum computing. The truth of the matter is that both now and in the foreseeable future, there is nothing that a few-qubit QC can do that your old laptop can not do. It is unclear how exactly one can verify that a "quantum code" actually runs on a quantum computer (instead of a “classical node” inserted between the cloud and the QC provider), and there is a huge window for fraud there. Another "dangerous element" here is that there could be customers where data security is paramount (like banks etc) who may choose to use the QC "service" just for the publicity sake (imagine a headline "Bank X adds quantum computing to its toolbox to protect customer data"), without actually caring much about the content. So, even if there is a $700 laptop between the cloud and the QC hardware, doing all the “work,” it wouldn't matter too much. Everybody is happy: the QC company sells its “service,” the bank gets the attention-grabbing headline of “quantum security,” and the VC recoups its investment in the quantum technology that makes “dent in the universe” (part of an actual “quantum” job description by one of the BigTech companies; the position is still open at the time of writing). But something is obviously wrong with this scenario, where fake science is promoted. There are of course many more "opportunities" to fool investors and the public in such a complicated space. But the Ponzi schemes can not continue forever, and sooner or later they tend to crash wiping millions of dollars of investors' money.
3. Arguably, the worst possible outcome would be damage to the reputation of science as a whole. It's bad enough that some fields of science (epidemiology, climate science, etc) have been unnecessarily politicized and where some research results and conclusions can not be just published and discussed in an open and unbiased manner. Fortunately, for the exact sciences, like math and physics, it has not been really a problem there just yet. However, now some STEM fields are facing a different danger. The manifestly false promises of quantum computing, routinely made by unqualified individuals, and the high potential for fraud in the less-than-transparent business schemes of the QC companies operating in a fake-it-until-you-make-it market all but guarantee an eventual collapse. Investors will be eventually asking questions, taxpayers will be eventually asking questions, but there will be no good answers. The likely downfall of this enterprise could irreparably damage the reputation of science and scientists across the board. But for now, the quantum house of cards is simultaneously both alive and dead.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/quantum-computing-hype-bad-science-victor-galitski-1c....
Finally some real commentary on exaggerated quantum computing "breakthroughs" touted by the media.
The author calls recent quantum computing headlines an intellectual ponzi scheme, a bubble. A trend potentially damaging to legitimate research on quantum computers and related fields.
If anyone wants a 2nd and more independant perspective on claimed quantum computing breakthroughs, this is a great read.
Markets have witnessed a few tech bubbles like the silicon valley dot com bubble craze. Is quantum computing the latest in tech bubble trends. What does everyone think.
