In the scientific community, dissatisfaction with the fashion for quantum computing is slowly growing. Many scholars doubt that the prospects of the direction correspond to the hype that has arisen around it, and condemn the widespread desire for achievement without regard to the opinion of the people.
A Twitter account with the eloquent name Quantum Bullshit Detector reflects the concern of some scientists about catchy statements and other troubling trends being circulated in the media.
This spring, a mysterious virtual figure called the Quantum Bullshit Detector entered the Twitter scene. Anonymous posts began to appear on this account with comments about the supposed breakthrough achievements in computing using quantum computers. A lot is said about these successes today: that this technique accelerates artificial intelligence algorithms, manages financial risks in banks and breaks any encoding. This account prefers to express its opinion in one single word: "Shit".
Such provocations have puzzled and confused experts in the field. Since the Detector is familiar with the terminology and intelligently selects the accounts it monitors, it seems that the person or people behind it belong to the community of quantum computing specialists. Scientists are not used to this kind of brazen trolling from their own ranks. "So far, everything is being done reasonably, but lynching is a risky business," wrote physicist Scott Aaronson in his blog a month after the detector's debut. And people started discussing on the Internet how seriously one should take the opinions expressed in this account.
“There is some confusion here. The quantum shit detector cannot argue with you. He can only bring out quantum shit. This is why we call ourselves Quantum Shit Detector! - such a record appeared in the account in response to the discussion that began.
In the months that followed, the account's writers called statements in scientific journals like Nature, journalistic publications in Scientific American, Quanta, and (I confess!) My article on the pages of WIRED as crap. Google's "demonstration of quantum superiority"? Shit. Tweet from businessman Andrew Yang about this demonstration? Shit. Quantum computing founder Seth Lloyd takes money from financier Jeffrey Epstein? Shit.
Now people ask the detector what his opinion is about certain articles, and he helpfully and uncomplicatedly answers: "Shit." And sometimes - "Not shit." The “detector” was not appreciated by everyone. One physicist called him "ignorant" and denounced him for "mediocrity and bad taste" in response to negative reviews of his work. But some believe that this account is providing a service to society in a new industry that is prone to exaggeration. “I think he's doing a good deed by bringing to light the articles that are poorly written,” says Spanish physicist Juani Bermejo-Vega, who works at the University of Granada.
The anonymous account emerged as a response to the growing concern in the quantum community as investment in the industry increases and the hype of hype rises accordingly.
Promotional video:
The governments of the United States, Britain, the EU and China have pledged over a billion dollars in investment (each) in quantum computing and related technologies. Each country hopes to be the first to master this technological potential, believing that this will help it, say, make better batteries or break into enemy encryption systems. But realizing these ambitions will take decades of hard work, and some researchers are concerned that they will not be able to live up to high expectations. Or even worse - that this technology will accidentally lead our world to the wrong place, and life in it will become worse. “The more money, the more promises, the more pressure to keep promises. And this leads to new exaggerations,”says Bermejo-Vega.
It is unclear whether quantum computers will ultimately benefit society, says Emma McKay, a graduate student at York University who studies the impact of technology on society. If quantum computers are widely available for use, they will need a storage infrastructure that is highly hostile to the environment, McKay said. As physicist Sabine Hossenfelder wrote to the Guardian, the quantum computers of the future, capable of simulating new chemicals, will produce 10 terabytes of data per second. “Numerous conventional computers and other devices will be needed to provide, program, operate and maintain them,” she says.
“I don’t yet have proof that quantum technologies are worth the resources that are allocated to them,” says McKay.
Most quantum researchers are not as strict as McKay, but they too are beginning to express concern, in particular, in response to a very specific announcement that made a lot of noise: “Google put on a demonstration of the superiority of quantum computers. During the demonstration, the company's researchers solved a number of mostly useless math problems on a quantum computer, and they did it faster than on a supercomputer. " This demonstration was leaked to the press in September, and since then, many academics have expressed concern over the word "superiority." After all, it gives reason to assume that quantum computers are better than conventional computers today, which is not true. Bermejo-Vega believes that the Google demo does indeed prove the scientific value and viability of this technique, but she stresses thatthat the success of these computers is "narrow" in nature. In addition, all quantum computers, including those created by Google, are unstable, as they often make mistakes that scientists cannot fix. "From a practical standpoint, Google's quantum computer is still largely useless," notes Bermejo-Vega.
Moreover, many researchers object to the use of the phrase "quantum supremacy" as it evokes associations with white supremacy. “Now we introduce ourselves to the world with that phrase,” says chemist Leonie Mueck, who works at British quantum computing startup Riverlane. "It seems to me that the scientific breakthrough that we define with this word is indeed complete, and all this is quite fair, but this word will influence the opinion of other people about the scientists involved in computing on quantum computers." Muck and others want the phrase "quantum advantage" to be used in such situations.
Moreover, Muck worries that the word "superiority" will alienate talented scientists from computing on quantum computers. “There are not enough people already,” she says. - There are a lot of startups, a lot of money, a lot of scientific positions that need to be filled. We cannot afford to repel women and minorities with such words. We need to work hard to bring them into this area of research, and I think every little thing needs to be considered here."
On Wednesday, Muck, Bermejo-Vega and 14 other scientists, including two quantum scientists from Microsoft, sent a letter to the editor of Nature magazine, which was published there under the heading "Supremacy for the racists - and we need to use the words" quantum advantage. " In their letter, the scholars insist on changing the vocabulary. “We find it irresponsible to ignore the historical context of this keyword, which contributes to the persistence of differences in race, gender and class,” they said.
Physicist Carmen Palacios-Berraquero, who co-authored this letter, says the problem is not only with the use of the word superiority. “I want this letter to kick-start a discussion about the responsibility of scientists and companies, and the ethics that must start from within,” said Palacios-Berraquero, CEO of UK startup Nu Quantum. In her opinion, the use of the word "excellence" in the quantum community is negligence and frivolity, and if left unchecked, it could lead to poor decisions in the future. “The situation is developing in such a way that people are uncomfortable with such words, they are hurt and outraged. But for some reason the quantum community cannot be bothered with such trifles even for a second,”says Palacios-Berraquero.
The letter's authors warn that the use of the word "superiority" is similar to the heartlessness demonstrated by space scientists. Specifically, they do not name anyone, but we are talking about the recent scandal associated with the construction of a new telescope on the slope of the Mauna Kea volcano in Hawaii. One of the authors of the letter, Divya Persaud, said that a group of activists led by indigenous people in Hawaii opposed the construction of the telescope because the volcano is considered a sacred site. Despite protests and a petition against the project, which garnered over 100,000 signatures, construction began in July. “There is an impatience, a drive for achievement without regard to the opinions of the people,” says Persaud, a graduate student at University College London.
After the letter was published in Nature, the authors continued to collect signatures through the website. They collected 64 signatures in the day after publication, Muk says. True, they have not yet verified their authenticity.
The scientists hope that through their efforts, industry leaders will apply quantum technologies more thoughtfully. Meanwhile, Quantum Shit Detector continues to tweet, becoming the self-styled overseer of the quantum community. (There was no response to a request for comment.) This week, the account has exploded into a series of comments. "Shit," he shouted into the internet space eight times in one hour. Who displeased him this time? Conference in Silicon Valley called "Practical Quantum Computing".
Sophia Chen
