Surprising even myself, but in keeping with the posting schedule of ‘whenever I feel like it’, I bring you yet another non-technical post. The quantum twitter is abuzz these past few days over an interview with Emma McKay published in the APS News titled Should We Build Quantum Computers At All?. As per the rule about articles with questions in the headline, McKay’s answer is “No”1. Go read it, the article is short.
There has been some argument on twitter about it, much of it contained in replies to Nick Farina’s tweet:
You can find a multitude of opinions there, and plenty of sub-threads. Some people agree with Nick and Emma:
Others do not find it particularly compelling:
You really should skim through the responses, they run pretty much the whole gamut. And, indeed, I think I align closely with Michael above, but since I happen to have a blog and don’t particularly like arguing on twitter, I figured it might be nice to try to articulate a vision of QC and advanced R&D in a longer form.
Talking Points
I found McKay’s argument2 mostly unconvincing. In fact, we differ so completely in world view, that there is little benefit to tackling the article point-by-point as we’d likely be talking past each other. Also, I think it’s more interesting to articulate a pro-QC vision that supports headlong efforts toward quantum computing.
In what follows, I will try to elaborate on my core beliefs:
Not only should we build quantum computers, it is our moral obligation to do so.
America is amazing, and maintaining American military primacy is desirable vs the alternative.
Technology is cause of and solution to all of life’s problems.
More scientists and technologists should run for office, so we can have elected leaders that actually understand what they’re regulating.
It Is A Moral Obligation To Build Quantum Computers
I actually believe this about pretty much all advanced technologies3. Being at the very edge of human knowledge, and then extending it, is a quintessentially human activity. It taps directly into the sense of wonder and curiosity that drives explorers of all kinds, from our smallest children who play to learn, to our ancestors who walked into the wilderness or hopped into a canoe and rowed over the horizon4.
As far as I can tell, what quantum computing is really offering us is a chance to revolutionize our understanding of information and its physical effects. There is a lot of scientific merit to working on QC and quantum information more broadly. There are so, so many interesting questions, problems to solve,5 and secrets to discover.
Although I don’t consider myself particularly religious, I cannot help but feel that God is in the qubits. Every facet of this work is an incredible testament not only to the ingenuity and perseverance of humanity, but also to the beauty and intricacy of Nature itself. Far from being ‘artificial’, the qubits and the machines we use to design, fabricate, and operate them are interacting with nature on level so deep and fundamental that it beggars the imagination. We like to use words like ‘probing’ and ‘interrogating’ when we talk about scientific endeavor, but it’s really more of a dialogue. Humans ask ‘how does this work?’ and then, if we have been clever enough, exacting enough, persistent enough, Nature might answer clearly. In short, the act of creating quantum computers is, in my eyes, a glorification of the natural world and the act of creation is an act of both beauty and divinity.
America, Fuck Yeah
Listen. I know America has major problems. Major, major problems. Nonetheless, I am grateful every day that my parents chose to give up their lives in their home country and take a chance here. The alternative to America, for me, would have been an immiserated life6. I have had opportunities here that I could never have even imagined had we never come7.
Yes, America isn’t amazing for everyone, and has really fucked over a lot of people, foreign and domestic. However, most places worth living in have these unfortunate qualities to a greater or lesser extent. The nice thing about America is that it’s set up up to be changed, if enough people agree8. I think the USA is still a net positive place to live and work9, and can still be a net good in the world.
To the end that I’m interested in maintaining nice things like global free trade, cheap energy, relative global security, freedom of expression, etc, I strongly believe in American military primacy and the United States’ place at the head of regional alliances that will keep the Russian and the Chinese ambitions in check. If this means working on QC projects funded by DARPA, ARO, AFRL, NSA, etc, then so be it. If it means working for a defense contractor because our technology companies refuse to take government money or contracts, so be it. If it means starting a new QC company specifically to serve government or military customers, so be it.
These beliefs seem to be incompatible with the current conception of ‘QC Ethics’ as I understand it. There seems to be an implicit (and sometimes explicit) understanding that accepting military funding, or working directly for the military, is simply unethical. I think that, while QC is promising or useful, there will be enough practitioners in the community with diverse enough views that anything but the most generic ethical framework will never be accepted. When the community of practice shrinks to a few academics due to irrelevance or infeasibility, there might be an agreed-upon framework with very specific guidelines, but it will be, well, irrelevant.
Powerful Tools Are Dangerous Tools
For a long time our tools were limited by the strength of the muscles that drove them, be they human or animal. Did you know water wheels provided the majority of useful mechanical work in the United States as late as the mid-1800s?10 A mere 100 years later we developed the ability to destroy human civilization many times over11.
I don’t disagree that powerful tools like nuclear fission, all of chemistry, synthetic biology, explosives, internal combustion engines, jet engines, and so on, should be carefully evaluated and availability controlled when necessary. Tools that are not worth the risk should not be developed further, or altered to minimize risk while maximizing benefit.
Implementing this sort of control is actually quite difficult, and there is a pretty high bar for what is considered too dangerous. For example, everyone agrees nuclear weapons should be tightly controlled. Not everyone agrees that firearms should be tightly controlled, even though guns have killed far more people than nuclear weapons. Only governments can have tanks, but anyone can own a car, even though cars are involved in tens (hundreds?) of thousands of deaths every year.
The thing is, we have no idea whether quantum computers will turn out to be cars or nuclear weapons (or cassette tapes). Right now, the technology is so primitive that it’s considered laudable to provide easy access to many quantum systems. It’s hard to imagine a QC doing anything but simulating baby’s first hydrogen molecule, or producing a bunch of random noise.
One concrete danger could be the annihilation of cryptographic security, which could cause problems for everyone. What to do? The natural response might be to slow QC development and accelerate/improve research into post-quantum encryption algorithms. However, it’s not at all clear that we’ll get to the tens of millions of physical qubits required to crack RSA within even 10 years. Additionally, from an outsider’s perspective, it seems like a way to accelerate post-quantum cryptography is to have a quantum computer to help attack encryption protocol candidates. So maybe the prudent thing to do is to make sure access to quantum computing resources is tightly controlled and overseen by our elected representatives? What will that mean for legitimate, non-cryptographic research on quantum computers? Likely that too will be highly restricted and closely monitored, which means, fundamentally, undemocratizing QC.
An alternative scenario is that QC turns out to be very useful for solving some of our most-pressing near-term problems12. We may choose to pursue them even if we know and can foresee that the proposed solutions will cause some sort of other problem down the line. We will need to develop more technology to deal with that, which will cause its own problems and so on. To be honest, this seems like table stakes for technological society to me. For example, I’m glad we discovered fossil fuels, they have been an amazing boon to every society that fully embraced them. They have given us almost literal miracles. Flight! Illumination on demand! High density housing (that won’t collapse in an earthquake)! Antibiotics! Fertilizer! And yes, hydrocarbon combustion is likely causing substantial warming across the globe. There are two answers here: deindustrialize or invent our way through to the next problem. I know my choice, which is why I expect we could and should choose to build QCs even we know they’ll come with their own problems13.
More Scientists In Government
This is not really a reason to build QCs, but a relevant point to the responsible use of quantum computing. I think that most of my positions are compatible even with substantial regulation and oversight, provided it is applied by people who understand what it is they are overseeing. A radical proposal, I know. There’s a lot of room for reasonable people to disagree here, but also a lot of room for reasonable people to compromise. And, as experts in the field, it’s our job to help shape that compromise.
It’s an old trope that people are wildly dissatisfied with their elected representatives, but we get the leaders we elect. I would like to see many more physicists in all levels14 of government, but especially at the national level. Hopefully some of these quantum startups will have massive exits, enriching their employees, and generating a class of independently wealthy QC experts who don’t actually need to work anymore. Perhaps some of them will consider political office, since it is otherwise a shitty job for shitty pay. One impediment to this is that the national discourse on just about anything is just atrocious. But! As people who contribute to the national discourse, we can also contribute to changing it.15
A Conclusion
I tried to layout some quasi-coherent world-view in which building quantum computers is Cool and Good. We should be able to respect Powerful and Dangerous Tools, without abandoning the glorious future they could promise us. There are a multitude of great reasons to keep going, ranging from patriotic idealism to a deep appreciation for the beauty and subtlety of nature. There are no reasons to stop, especially with the sheer uncertainty about whether the task can even be done before we’re all retired.
It’s actually “probably not”, but I’m trying to make things snappy here.
To be fair, I am not sure they were actually trying to convince anyone. I think it read more as two friends sort of shooting the shit rather than a particularly rigorous introduction to their ideas.
With the possible exception of synthetic biology and gain of function research on pathogens. Biological materials should have much, much tighter controls.
Of course, some exploration is done by necessity, driven by disaster or some other pressing need.
Maciej and I described a few areas of… opportunity for trapped ions and superconducting qubits, respectively.
And not because of Americans, either!
Among my fellow immigrant friends, this attitude is fairly prevalent, while relatively more of my US born friends are much more pessimistic about the United States.
Have you been voting in your local elections?
Yes, even in light of <current thing>.
I read this in Vaclav Smil’s excellent tome, Energy and Civilization.
I find it encouraging that we have not yet done this.
Pick your favorite.
I’m way more worried about problems we could not have foreseen because we didn’t have the scientific knowledge to even ask the right questions.
You should run for office.
Have you tried voting in your local election instead of posting that hot take on Twitter?
The incentives to build it come now from the Government, Venture Capital and BigTech who will acquire the best startups and use it for their AQ advantage.
The hype feeds the narrative and the VC money feeds the momentum, but who in the end are the beneficiaries? Google and Microsoft will say, the healthcare benefits of humanity. Even Palantir with their commercial growth in healthcare will have to get into AQ.
What is the difference between BigTech or the CCP controlling the narrative? The U.S. bias is considerable. Both will have access to the tech, one can make the argument it's more dangerous than safe for the 21st century. But when the profit-motive is the driving force of innovation (backed by National Defense), I think we have a fairly clear idea of what the outcome will be.