More on whether useful quantum computing is 'imminent'
Source: Hacker News
Why I’m More Optimistic About Quantum Computing Today
These days, the most common question I get goes something like this:
A decade ago, you told people that scalable quantum computing wasn’t imminent.
Now, though, you claim it plausibly is imminent. Why have you reversed yourself??
I appreciated the friend of mine who paraphrased this as follows:
“A decade ago you said you were 35. Now you say you’re 45. Explain yourself!”
Recent Talks & Appearances
A couple weeks ago, I was delighted to attend Q2B 2025 – Silicon Valley in Santa Clara, where I gave a keynote talk entitled “Why I Think Quantum Computing Works” (the PowerPoint slides are linked here).
- This is one of the most optimistic talks I’ve ever given.
- Uncharacteristically for me, I gave short shrift to the challenge of broadening the class of problems that achieve huge quantum speedups and focused instead on the experimental milestones achieved over the past year.
- With every experimental milestone, the little voice in my head that asks “what if Gil Kalai turned out to be right after all? What if scalable QC wasn’t possible?” grows quieter—until now it can barely be heard.
Going to Q2B was extremely helpful in giving me a sense of the current state of the field.
- Ryan Babbush gave a superb overview (I couldn’t have improved a word) of the current status of quantum algorithms.
- John Preskill’s annual “where‑we‑stand” talk was “magisterial” as usual (that’s the word I’ve long used for his talks), making mine look like just a warm‑up act for his.
- Meanwhile, Quantinuum took a victory lap, boasting of their recent successes in a way that I considered basically justified.
Podcast Interview
After returning from Q2B, I did an hour‑long podcast with “The Quantum Bull” on the topic “How Close Are We to Fault‑Tolerant Quantum Computing?”. You can watch it here:
- As far as I remember, this is the first YouTube interview I’ve ever done that concentrates entirely on the current state of the QC race, skipping any attempt to explain amplitudes, interference, and other basic concepts.
- Despite (or conceivably because of) that, I’m happy with how this interview turned out.
- Watch if you want to know my detailed current views on hardware—as always, I recommend 2× speed.
Quick Summary (for those who don’t have the half hour)
-
Two kinds of companies
- Large companies and startups that are actually trying to solve the real technical problems—many of them are making amazing progress.
- Companies that have optimized for IPOs, astronomical valuations, and selling a narrative to retail investors and governments about how quantum computing is poised to revolutionize optimization, machine learning, and finance.
Right now, I see these two sets of companies as almost entirely disjoint from each other.
-
Condemnation of misrepresentations
The interview contains my most direct condemnation yet of some of the wild misrepresentations that IonQ, in particular, has made to governments about what QC will be good for (“unlike AI, quantum computers won’t hallucinate because they’re deterministic!”). -
Most impressive hardware demonstrations (past year)
- Trapped ions – Quantinuum (and Oxford Ionics)
- Superconducting qubits – Google (and IBM)
- Neutral atoms – QuEra (and also Infleqtion and Atom Computing)
-
My stance
Contrary to a misconception that refuses to die, I haven’t dramatically changed my views on any of these matters. As I have for a quarter century, I continue to profess a lot of confidence in the basic principles of quantum‑computing theory worked out in the mid‑1990s, and I also continue to profess ignorance of exactly how many years it will take to realize those principles in the lab, and of which hardware approach will get there first. -
Updates in response to ground‑level progress
It would be insane not to update! 2025 was clearly a year that met or exceeded my expectations on hardware, with multiple platforms now boasting >99.9 % fidelity two‑qubit gates, at or above the theoretical threshold for fault‑tolerance. This year nudged me toward taking the aggressive pronouncements—the “roadmaps”—of Google, Quantinuum, QuEra, PsiQuantum, and other companies about where they could be in 2028 or 2029 more seriously. -
Known applications (from “30,000 feet”)
- Simulation of quantum physics and chemistry.
- Breaking a lot of currently deployed cryptography.
- Eventually achieving some modest benefits for optimization, machine learning, and other areas (but it will probably be a while before those modest benefits win out in practice).
The detailed list of quantum speedups expands over time (as new quantum algorithms are discovered) and contracts over time (as some quantum algorithms get de‑quantized). Yet the high‑level list of known applications remains fairly close to what it was a quarter century ago, after you hack away the dense thickets of obfuscation and hype.
A Historical Warning
When Frisch and Peierls wrote their now‑famous memo in March 1940, estimating the mass of Uranium‑235 that would be needed for a fission bomb, they didn’t publish it in a journal, but communicated the result through military channels only.
As recently as February 1939, Frisch and Meitner had published in Nature their theoretical explanation of recent experiments, showing that the uranium nucleus could fission when bombarded by neutrons.
But by 1940, Frisch and Peierls realized that the time for open publication o…
(The passage ends abruptly in the original text; it is reproduced here unchanged.)
If these matters had passed.
Similarly, at some point, the people doing detailed estimates of how many physical qubits and gates it’ll take to break actually deployed cryptosystems using Shor’s algorithm are going to stop publishing those estimates, if for no other reason than the risk of giving too much information to adversaries. Indeed, for all we know, that point may have been passed already. This is the clearest warning that I can offer in public right now about the urgency of migrating to post‑quantum cryptosystems, a process that I’m grateful is already underway.
**Update:** Someone on Twitter who’s “long $IONQ” says he’ll be [posting about and investigating me](https://x.com/SPAC_Infleqtion/status/2002826241146302651) every day, never resting until UT Austin fires me, in order to punish me for slandering IonQ and other “pure play” SPAC IPO quantum companies. And also, because I’ve been anti‑Trump and pro‑Biden. He confabulates that I must be trying to profit from my stance (e.g., by shorting the companies I criticize), it being inconceivable to him that anyone would say anything purely because they care about what’s true.Post Details
- Posted: Sunday, December 21st, 2025 at 11:34 am
- Categories:
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
You can use rich HTML in comments! You can also use basic TeX, by enclosing it within $$ $$ for displayed equations or \( \) for inline equations.
After two decades of mostly‑open comments, in July 2024 Shtetl‑Optimized transitioned to the following policy:
All comments are treated, by default, as personal missives to me, Scott Aaronson—with no expectation either that they’ll appear on the blog or that I’ll reply to them.
At my leisure and discretion, and in consultation with the Shtetl‑Optimized Committee of Guardians, I’ll put on the blog a curated selection of comments that I judge to be particularly interesting or to move the topic forward, and I’ll do my best to answer those. But it will be more like Letters to the Editor. Anyone who feels unjustly censored is welcome to the rest of the Internet.