Nikita Gourianov, a physicist at Oxford University, published yesterday a damning article full of wild, damning claims about the field of quantum computing and the scientists who work in it.
According to Gourianov, the quantum computing industry has been led astray by greedy physicists who have ramped up the technology’s capabilities to rip off VCs and get paid private sector salaries for doing academic research.
double double
According to Gourianov’s article, the real problems started in the 2010s after investors started noticing the hype surrounding quantum physics:
As more money poured in, the field grew and it became more and more tempting for scientists to oversell their results. Over time, salesperson-type figures, usually without any understanding of quantum physics, entered the field, taking senior positions in companies and concentrating solely on generating fanfare. After a few years of this, a highly exaggerated perspective on the promise of quantum computing reached the mainstream, leading to greed and misunderstanding and the formation of a classic bubble.
Greetings, Humanoids
Sign up for our newsletter now for a weekly roundup of our favorite AI stories delivered to your inbox.
Gourianov’s entire premise seems to depend on their claim that “despite years of effort, no one has come close to building a quantum machine that is actually capable of solving practical problems.”
They illustrate their argument by pointing out that Rigetti, IonQ and D-Wave (three popular quantum computing companies) together have failed to make enough profit.
According to Gourianov:
The reality is that none of these companies — or any other quantum computing company for that matter — make any real money. The little revenue they generate usually comes from consulting missions that aim to teach other companies “how quantum computers will help their business”, rather than really taking advantage of the advantages quantum computers have over classical computers.
Finally, Gourianov’s conclusion leaves no doubt about their feelings on the subject:
Well, when exactly the bubble will burst is hard to say, but at some point the claims will be discovered and funding will dry up. I just hope that when the music stops and the bubble pops, the public will still listen to us physicists.
Pain and effort
In the words of the great Jules Winnfield, Samuel Jackson’s character from the classic film Pulp Fiction, “Well, allow me to answer.”
I only have five words I’d like to say to Gourianov, which are: IBM, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Intel.
I don’t think we need to dig deep into the balance sheets of big technology to explain that none of those companies are at financial risk. Yet each of them develops quantum computers.
It is unclear why Dr. Gourianov would leave the big technology out of the argument completely. There are dozens and dozens of articles from just Google and IBM demonstrating breakthrough after breakthrough in the field.
Gourianov’s main argument against quantum computing seems, inexplicably, to be that they won’t be very useful for cracking quantum-resistant encryption. With all due respect, that’s like saying we shouldn’t develop surgical scalpels because they’re practically useless against chainmail.
Per Gourianov’s article:
Shor’s algorithm has been a godsend to the quantum industry, leading to untold amounts of funding from government security agencies around the world. However, the oft-forgotten caveat here is that there are many alternative cryptographic schemes that are not vulnerable to quantum computers. It would be far from impossible to simply replace these vulnerable schemes with so-called “quantum secure” schemes.
This seems to indicate that Gourianov believes that at least some physicists have misled governments and investors into convincing everyone that we need quantum computers for security.
This argument feels a bit childish and resembles a border conspiracy theory. Governments around the world have been working with experts from companies like Google spinout SandboxAQ and IBM for several years to address the encryption problem.
No serious person involved in decision making will be confused about how math works because of some crappy marketing hype or misleading headline.
Gourianov’s rhetoric reaches a climax when they seem to accuse physicists of manipulating the hype surrounding quantum computing out of sheer greed:
Some physicists believe, privately, that there is no problem here: why not take advantage of the situation while it lasts, and take the easy money of the not-so-advanced investors? After all, earning a salary at the private sector level while essentially doing academic research is a pretty good deal.
That’s quite the accusation.
Quantum computing bubble?
Overall, though, it feels like Gourianov’s main complaint isn’t that quantum computers don’t work, it is that they are not very useful. dr. Gorianov is not wrong. The technology is far from mature.
But make no mistake, today’s quantum computer systems do work. They just don’t work well enough yet to replace classic computers for many useful functions.
Looking at the roadmap above, keep in mind that IBM was founded in 1911. It was not built the IBM 5150the company’s first PC, until 1981.
Along the way, many renowned scientists said: the PC market was a bubble. The naysayers argued that not only was it pointless for consumers, but that there were simply too many problems to be solved to make computers affordable and usable for personal use.
We all know how that worked out for IBM. Do we even need to go into what Intel, Microsoft, Amazon and Google have achieved over the course of their ventures? They each have their own roadmaps on how to approach the STEM challenges of quantum computing. So are MIT, Harvard, Oxford and countless other universities.
I’m by no means a big techie, but there’s a lot to say about a handful of companies that are somewhere around the a trillion dollars mark each the decision that a forward-looking technology vertical is worth betting their passbooks on.
It is beyond the scope of this article to address any non-trillion dollar company in the field of quantum computing. But after speaking with dozens of people who work at various quantum computing companies, including the ones Gourianov mentioned, it’s clear to me that no one who builds quantum computers has a misconception about their capabilities — not even the C-suite executives.
If VCs are confused and the media hype is interfering with the capabilities of the technology, that’s what I’d call it as always.
I can’t think of any modern technology that always does mainstream journalism well. And a significant portion of wealthy VCs will be both eager and ignorant about a particular technology – will we be talking about AI or Web3 investments as well?
The future is now
In my opinion, it would take a scientific shock akin to discovering a viable antithesis to Newton’s laws to knock the bottom out of the quantum computer industry. We’re not talking about a theoretical technology, we’re talking about an emerging one.
Quantum computers are here now. But like the IBM 5150 in 1981, they don’t really do anything that ordinary computers of their day can’t do.
Still, I’d like to hear what everyone who said the PC market was a bubble in 1981 has to say about it now.
I imagine that in 40 years we will all see quantum computers differently.
Perhaps quantum computing is a bubble market for VCs looking for short-term ROI projects, but the technology isn’t going anywhere.
there is Overwhelming evidence that current quantum computing technology is rapidly advancing to the point where it can help us solve problems unfeasible for classical computation.
Perhaps a bunch of greedy scientists are peddling unwarranted optimism at VCs and entrepreneurs. But I bet there are more curious scientists and engineers who have chosen this field because they want to build quantum computers.