Quantum hype accusations: the industry hits back

Significant challenges remain, but quantum computing is advancing faster than its classical counterpart

Earlier this month, an article by Oxford physicist Dr Nikita Gourianov accused quantum computing researchers of overstating both the scope, practical applications and progress being made with the nascent technology in order to attract funding. He also argued that predictions about the quantum computing's prospects and utility are overoptimistic because the practical hurdles are too great.

"Despite years of effort nobody has yet come close to building a quantum machine that is actually capable of solving practical problems," Gourianov wrote.

Needless to say, Gourianov's comments, published in an article for the FT, caused quite a stir within the industry and among its researchers and backers.

In a follow-up article for the FT, Simon Benjamin, co-founder of quantum computing firm Quantum Motion and professor of quantum technologies at Oxford University, accepted that the field is the subject of a certain amount of optimistic projection (what major new technology isn't?) but denied it's purely hype (his italics), describing Gourianov's assertion as "a misconception and a failure to understand where we are and where we'll end up."

We asked a VC backer of quantum computing, an analyst and a company engaged in post-quantum cryptography for their take.

Hype versus overhype

All new technologies, particularly those promising revolutionary change, are subject to hype, and predictions about their eventual utility are not always grounded in reality. This, sadly, is inevitable in the current system due to the requirement to raise funds to support research that may not bear fruit for many years.

The real question is, when does ‘normal hype' - which canny investors know how to read - turn into 'overhype', a pure speculative bubble?

It pays to be cautious when evaluating the potential benefits of any new tech, says Ekaterina Almasque, General Partner at early stage venture capital firm OpenOcean, but interest in quantum is spread across a wide range of parties meaning it's unlikely to be a bubble. Also, its potential is enormous; once quantum computing becomes commercialised, "it will revolutionise industries across the globe".

Nevertheless, given the lengthy timescales and the not insignificant technical hurdles, investors need to be in for the long haul.

"The entire quantum computing ecosystem is still distinctly within its development stage," Almasque explained, adding that at this point in the development cycle a certain amount of promotion, or hype, is necessary, to "drive critical funding for this revolutionary technology."

Gourianov, she says, takes an all-or-nothing view of progress in quantum computing research, whereas in fact activity is proceeding in many different corners.

"He takes a very academic view and projects it onto the quantum industry as a whole. In reality, the industry cuts corners, such as with the deep learning AI methods versus fully autonomous systems envisioned by academia. As a result, there are functioning approaches and real commercial use cases with revenues."

A similar point was made by Piers Clinton-Tarestad, Partner, Technology Risk at EY UK&I.

"While widespread disruption from quantum computing in the short term is unlikely, it's still important that we continue to explore the multiple pathways by which it is progressing," he said.

"There is more than one type of quantum computer, and some of the multiple modalities that are being explored are more mature than others. While these might not cover the same array of use cases as the universal machine, they may nonetheless be useful, and come sooner than expected."

Rebecca Krauthamer, Chief Product Officer at post-quantum security company QuSecure, believes the accusations of ‘overhype' are based on the traditional expectations of venture capital to turn a profit within 10 years of investment.

"He's right that there are risks to achieving a commercially relevant quantum computer within venture capital time horizons. On the other hand, because it is so early, there is also great opportunity to seed the future giants of quantum computing."

Quantum development is arguably progressing faster than classical computing development did -Rebecca Krauthamer, QuSecure

The 1980s tech boom which spawned tech giants such as Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and SAP came about as a direct consequence of the commercially availability of semiconductors two decades earlier. Krauthamer argues that quantum computing, which saw its first commercial application in 2011 with D-Wave, is moving more rapidly and breakthroughs may well come quicker.

"Quantum development is arguably progressing faster than classical computing development did in large part because we have classical computers to aid us in development," Krauthamer said.

Where are the physicists?

And so to the criticisim that there is so far nothing to show for the billions ploughed into quantum, and that the concerns of physicists have been ignored.

"In essence, the quantum computing industry has yet to demonstrate any practical utility, despite the fanfare," Gourianov wrote. "Why is then so much money flowing in? Well, it is mainly due to the fanfare."

Maybe he should be more patient, said Skip Sanzeri, founder and COO at QuSecure: "If every industry needed to demonstrate practical utility prior to investment, there would be no new development."

If we take Gourianov's stance, then we have to believe that all of these very smart, driven people are wrong - Skip Sanzeri, QuSecure

No-one knows when quantum computing will be practical for general use cases, but given the nature of the individuals and organisations working on it, to write it off at this stage would be extremely unwise, he went on.

"There are some very smart people at Google, Microsoft, Amazon, IBM, Baidu, Alibaba and various countries around the world including China who are investing hundreds of billions of dollars in quantum computing. If we take Gourianov's stance, then we have to believe that all of these very smart, driven people are wrong."

In his article, Gourianov implies that investors typically lack "any understanding of quantum physics" while "taking senior positions in companies and focusing solely on generating fanfare". If that were the case it certainly wouldn't be the first time money has been lost to a well-crafted sales pitch, but it would be to ignore all the money being invested by Google, IBM, Microsoft and others who have talented physicists working in the field, Sanzeri added.

"Is Gourianov right, or would we bet on the entire quantum teams at IBM or Google? I'd say Gourianov should place a call to Google's Hartmut Neven, Psi Quantum's Jeremy O'Brien or IBM's Jay Gambetta - all who, by the way, are physicists - and let them debate the topic."

Unsure about Shor

On a slightly different tack, Gourianov claims the threat posed to widely used asymmetric cryptography algorithms by quantum computers running something like Shor's algorithm has been used to feed the hype machine, and that risks have been overstated.

"Shor's algorithm has been a godsend to the quantum industry, leading to untold amounts of funding from government security agencies all over the world," he says, arguing that it would be "far from impossible" to replace vulnerable algorithms with existing alternatives.

Far from impossible, maybe, but also far from easy. And has NIST spent the last six years seeking quantum-safe replacements on the basis of market froth?

Even if we were to accept the threat had been overhyped, points out Krauthamer, it's not the quantum computing industry that has benefited, unless he's extending that definition to include cryptographers.

"Post-quantum cryptography does not need a quantum computer to defend against quantum hacks," she said, adding that the risk of store-now-decrypt-later (SNDL) attacks goes beyond the quantum sphere.

"If quantum computers are at least a few years out, can we ignore the hype for now? Unfortunately, no.

"It's for this reason that the White House released two executive memos this year mandating agencies upgrade to quantum resistant encryption. The message is clear - the time to act is now."

Where will the advances come?

Like it or not, until there are solid use cases to point at, quantum computing will always be open to accusations of being vapourware. So what will those use cases be?

Assuming a stable, viable, general purpose quantum computer emerges, it will not replace classical computing for most tasks. But it could be incredibly useful, indeed revolutionary, for those involving massive parallel processing, the classic big data and AI use cases, so where should we be looking?

"It will be in a field built on making a huge amount of complex calculations in a short period of time," said Almasque.

"If I had to pick an area outside scientific research, I would point to the logistics industry. Supply chains are under pressure like never before. Imagine a world where businesses could instantly calculate millions of possible scenarios, and maintain the flow of goods around the world. It would change everything."

I believe the winner will most probably emerge from Europe - Ekaterina Almasque, OpenOcean

Big breakthroughs like these will happen where a large pool of talent combines with an industry that is working closely with customers, she added.

"Whoever begins solving real-world issues first will be named the winner. I believe that this winner will most probably emerge from Europe."

Efforts to increase the number of intertwined qubits are mostly being undertaken by giants likes Google and IBM, but there are many smaller firms operating in the hardware sphere using alternative approaches to stabilise these sensitive structures or increase their efficiency. However, for most smaller companies, advances will likely be in the software stack, Almasque believes, although the current race for hardware supremacy and consequenbt lack of standards makes it difficult to get started.

"Manufacturers are incredibly reluctant to share their products with one another. This is a phenomenon that has derailed emerging technologies for hundreds of years. However, these manufacturers will need to collaborate and leverage one another's products to overcome the issues hindering the layer from advancing."

EY's Clinton-Tarestad also believes the software stack will be pivotal.

"Improved error correction and more efficient algorithms could accelerate the technology scale in the future, and the UK is in a strong position with the research and development capabilities in place to lead much of this work."

Will it scale?

Gourianov is certainly correct that quantum computing faces a number of significant challenges before it becomes commercially viable, one of which is scalability.

Scaling up to a few thousand qubits "is likely to lead to a single quantum computer occupying the floor of a large building, if not the whole building. That's just one quantum computer with one user at a time," notes Quantum Motion's Benjamin.

What's more there aren't currently any viable options for shrinking them. However, these may come, and even if the first quantum computers are the equivalent of the old 1980s mainframe, affordable by just a few governments and corporations, quantum computing as a service is already available and the path to further developments is clear, even if the timing may not be.

It is sensible to be wary of the hype, of course, but the range of activities and actors and the steady progress in increasing the number of qubits in quantum devices (most experts see a few thousand stable qubits as being a likely inflection point) surely point to breakthroughs sooner or later. Quantum computing is unlikely to be the next nuclear fusion.

"The mix of voices and opinions in the public sphere is welcome, as they help keep a sense of balance, proportionality and challenge at a level that drives the technology forward." said EY's Clinton-Tarestad.