{"id":12132,"date":"2022-08-26T19:50:17","date_gmt":"2022-08-26T19:50:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/TheNextWeb=1390905"},"modified":"2022-08-26T19:50:17","modified_gmt":"2022-08-26T19:50:17","slug":"oxford-scientist-says-greedy-physicists-have-overhyped-quantum-computing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.londonchiropracter.com\/?p=12132","title":{"rendered":"Oxford scientist says greedy physicists have overhyped quantum computing"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Nikita Gourianov, a physicist at Oxford university, yesterday published a scathing article<\/a> full of wild, damning claims about the field of quantum computing and the scientists who work in it.<\/p>\n

According to Gourianov, the quantum computing industry has been led astray by greedy physicists who\u2019ve hyped up the tech\u2019s possibilities in order to rip off VCs and get paid private-sector salaries for doing academic research.<\/p>\n

Double, double<\/h2>\n

Per Gourianov\u2019s article, the real problems started in the 2010s after investors started taking notice of the hype surrounding quantum physics:<\/p>\n

\n

As more money flowed in, the field grew, and it became progressively more tempting for scientists to oversell their results. With time, salesman-type figures, typically without any understanding of quantum physics, entered the field, taking senior positions in companies and focusing 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 a greed and misunderstanding taking hold and the formation of a classical bubble.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n
\n
<\/div>\n

\n

Greetings, humanoids<\/h2>\n

Subscribe to our newsletter now for a weekly recap of our favorite AI stories in your inbox.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Gourianov\u2019s entire premise seems to hinge on their assertion that \u201cdespite years of effort nobody has yet come close to building a quantum machine that is actually capable of solving practical problems.\u201d<\/p>\n

They illustrate their argument by pointing out that Rigetti, IonQ, and D-Wave (three popular quantum computing companies) combined have failed to turn a sufficient profit.<\/p>\n

According to Gourianov:<\/p>\n

\n

The reality is that none of these companies \u2014 or any other quantum computing firm, for that matter \u2014 are actually earning any real money. The little revenue they generate mostly comes from consulting missions aimed at teaching other companies about \u201chow quantum computers will help their business\u201d, as opposed to genuinely harnessing any advantages that quantum computers have over classical computers.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Finally, Gourianov\u2019s conclusion leaves no doubt as to their feelings on the subject:<\/p>\n

\n

Well, when exactly the bubble will pop is difficult to say, but at some point the claims will be found out and the funding will dry up. I just hope that when the music stops and the bubble pops, the public will still listen to us physicists.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Toil and trouble<\/h2>\n

In the words of the great Jules Winnfield, Samuel Jackson\u2019s character from the classic film Pulp Fiction, \u201cWell, allow me to retort.<\/i>\u201d<\/p>\n

I have but five words I\u2019d like to say to Gourianov, and they are: IBM, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Intel.<\/p>\n

I don\u2019t think we need to do a deep dive into big tech\u2019s balance sheets to explain that none of those companies are in any financial danger. Yet, each of them is developing quantum computers<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s unclear why Dr. Gourianov would leave big tech out of the argument entirely. There are dozens upon dozens of papers from Google<\/a> and IBM<\/a> alone demonstrating breakthrough after breakthrough in the field.<\/p>\n

Gourianov\u2019s primary argument against quantum computing appears, inexplicably, to be that they won\u2019t be very useful for cracking quantum-resistant encryption<\/a>. With respect, that\u2019s like saying we shouldn\u2019t develop surgical scalpels because they\u2019re practically useless against chain mail armor.<\/p>\n

Per Gourianov\u2019s article:<\/p>\n

\n

Shor\u2019s algorithm has been a godsend to the quantum industry, leading to untold amounts of funding from government security agencies all over the world. However, the commonly 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 \u201cquantum-secure\u201d ones.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This appears to suggest that Gourianov believes at least some physicists have pulled a bait-and-switch on governments and investors by convincing everyone that we need quantum computers for security.<\/p>\n

This argument feels a bit juvenile and like a borderline conspiracy theory. Governments around the world have been working in tandem with experts from companies such as Google spinout SandboxAQ<\/a> and IBM<\/a> for several years to address the encryption issue. <\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

No serious person involved in the decision-making is going to be confused about how math works because of crappy marketing hype or a misleading headline. <\/span><\/p>\n

Gourianov\u2019s rhetoric reaches a peak as they appear to accuse physicists of manipulating the hype around quantum computing out of sheer greed:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Some physicists believe, in private, that there is no problem here: why not take advantage of the situation while it lasts, and take the easy money from the not-too-sophisticated investors? Earning a private-sector level salary whilst doing essentially academic research is a pretty good deal, after all.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That\u2019s quite the accusation. <\/span><\/p>\n

Quantum computing bubble?<\/h2>\n

On the whole, however, it feels like Gourianov\u2019s chief complaint isn\u2019t that quantum computers don\u2019t work<\/span>, it\u2019s that they aren\u2019t very useful. Dr. Gorianov isn\u2019t wrong. The technology is far from mature. <\/span><\/p>\n

But make no mistake, today\u2019s quantum computing systems do work. They just don\u2019t work well enough to replace classical computers for many useful functions \u2014 yet.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"IBM's
<\/i><\/a>Image: IBM<\/figcaption>