Hi All
I hope you enjoy this piece:
Quantum computing is having a moment. Decades of deep theoretical work are rapidly translating into tangible hardware, sophisticated algorithms, and a burgeoning global ecosystem. It’s a field characterized by profound complexity, immense potential, and, inevitably, plenty of buzz.
Where there is potential, people flock. We have the dedicated scientists and engineers methodically tackling some of the hardest problems in physics and computation. But we also have the hangers-on. So let’s talk about the cast of adjacent characters in this quantum theater.
Grifters: Fearmongers and Snake Oil Peddlers
First, there are the outright grifters – the fearmongers. We know them well. These folks slither into the quantum space claiming insider scoops from shadowy agencies like the NSA. “Quantum computers are already here, breaking your encryption as we speak!” they cry, all while hawking overpriced “quantum-proof” solutions. It’s unethical snake oil, leveraging fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) to line their pockets. I’ve covered these charlatans before, so I won’t dwell on them. They’re a symptom of the field’s rapid growth: where there’s buzz, someone will try to monetize the panic.
Skeptics and Contrarians: The Valuable Critics
Then there are the thoughtful skeptics and honest contrarians. Contrarianism for its own sake isn’t productive. Yet the best of them operate in good faith as useful skeptics. They ask tough questions, challenge assumptions, and force us to re-examine our premises. They often bring a healthy dose of skepticism that can sharpen the discourse. Even when we disagree, the engagement can be valuable. It’s a dialectic process that ideally leads to a sharper, more robust understanding of the truth. We both tend to learn from the exchange.
In quantum computing, contrarians like Yann LeCun and Gil Kalai argue that scalability might be a pipe dream due to issues like decoherence (quantum states collapsing too quickly) and the enormous overhead of error correction (potentially needing thousands of physical qubits for one reliable logical qubit). They point out that current NISQ (Noisy Intermediate-Scale Quantum) devices are error-prone and limited in real-world applications. But here’s the key: these voices aren’t just nay-saying. They demand evidence, push for better benchmarks, and force the field to address weaknesses. This is valuable for tempering hype. At its best, contrarian skepticism is productive: contrarians engage, debate, and even pivot when new data emerges. When they provide well-thought-out arguments, that discourse is invaluable.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/easiest-job-quantum-computing-being-cynic-marin-ivezic-zgtxc/?trackin...
Regards
Caute_Cautim
