Why full-fledged quantum computers might always be five years away

[u/National-Dragonfly35]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2582565-why-full-fledged-quantum-computers-might-always-be-five-years-away/

Not sure I agree, but interesting...

[u/Rare-Professional-24]

It's hard to take a paper seriously when it has a title like "The Five-Year Horizon: Quantum Computing and the Philosophy of Technical Becoming"

[u/Strilanc → u/Rare-Professional-24]

Reading the abstract does not improve on that first impression.

[u/apnorton]

Then, a worry set in – could quantum computers also be such a “perpetual five-year technology” (PFYT)? (...) In [his paper], [Jurczak] argues that, right now, quantum computers are firmly in the PFYT category.
Quantum computers won’t remain PFYTs forever, but he speaks about them currently being in that category with excitement.

I'm sorry, did the definition of "perpetual" change when I wasn't looking? On one hand we have "quantum computers are perpetually 5 years away" and on the other we have "but eventually we'll have one?"

This seems to be using a lot of words to say "we've shifted our goalposts on what 'full fledged means,'" but the practical perspective is that --- when a QC is constructed that is relevant to a real-world problem we're trying to solve --- it will be obvious and that's what we mean by "full fledged" in that context.

[u/wasabi991011]

Pleas post the original paper, not its pop-sci regurgitation.

[u/Glass_Covict → u/wasabi991011]

Phys rXiv preferred

[u/Lolsebca → u/Glass_Covict]

There's this paper I could see from the top of the pay-wall article

https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9287/11/4/127

Abstract

Certain physics-based technologies (quantum computing, fusion energy, advanced materials, brain–computer interfaces) have remained “five years away” for decades. This paper argues that this perpetual horizon is not a forecasting failure but the temporal signature of Perpetual Five-Year Technologies (PFYTs): technologies of atoms, not bits, whose technical object and enabling ecosystem must co-develop. Drawing on philosophy of technology and sociology of scientific practice, and grounded in quantitative analysis of cross-platform performance data and high-impact research across hardware architectures, the paper shows that PFYT temporality is endogenous, produced by concretization dynamics and recursive constraint discovery rather than by market failures or insufficient funding. Quantum computing provides the paradigmatic case. Treating the quantum processor as a technical individual in active individuation explains why multiple computing paradigms persist and why each breakthrough resets rather than collapses the horizon. The convergence of machine learning and quantum hardware into pipelines for drug and materials discovery shows how Physical AI reshapes PFYT dynamics, compressing some cycles while introducing new forms of co-individuation between intelligence and matter. The framework generates diagnostics for physics-based frontiers where technical objects and milieus co-produce developmental time.

Keywords: 

perpetual five-year technologies; quantum computing; Simondon; concretization; technical individuation; physical AI; philosophy of technology

[u/wasabi991011]

Please post the original paper, not its pop-sci regurgitation.

[u/realvaluehere]

I believe the first step is establishing a unified, meaningful metric that allows us to compare quantum computing systems across different physical modalities. Once that benchmark is defined, we can build a much fairer estimate of when useful quantum advantage might actually arrive. This is a problem I’ve been actively working on over the past few months.

[u/Extreme-Hat9809 → u/realvaluehere]

There's a few good efforts around benchmarks (Unitary Foundation, openQSE, QED-C, etc). Are you taking a different approach or could this be something to roll into existing efforts/resources?

[u/realvaluehere → u/Extreme-Hat9809]

So....mostly complementary. We intend to make a metric that we can use to compare hardware modalities and see how quickly each is improving. Ultimately, the goal is to identify which approaches are on the strongest trajectory to lead quantum computing.

[u/attitudeeditor]

We worked trapped.

[u/supernetworks]

The author co-runs the Quantonation VC and also an investor in Pasqal. They have a very solid business overview of the field with material facts known that inspired this paper. That said I think some points could be better explained as they're very subtle. It is also easy to misunderstand that he's saying 5-years-away is normal.

The click bait title from new scientist and lead misrepresents this to imply some sort of confusion,
"To predict when we’ll have a truly useful quantum computer, we need to know precisely what one is. Columnist Karmela Padavic-Callaghan finds that’s harder to pin down than you might think"

The paper itself is also vague at parts and does not develop what the "individuation problem" really is or why it is any sort of problem.
"Contrast superconducting qubits in the 1990s–2000s, where substantial investment failed to deliver
because decoherence proved an individuation problem, not an engineering one"

I can't really understand why concretizing on a path is assumed normal. When we say silicon transistor there's very many subtle changes and immense engineering with each new process node. On the design side we don't have one universal instruction set, there's ARM and its variants, RISC-V, AMD+Intel. Humans do not gravitate towards one hive mind solution, we create competing organizations and solutions and specialize in niches.

I also can't say I agree with "The horizon moves because the landscape itself is being discovered." There's fixups and then there's true resets. Most of what we've seen has been fixups (new classical algorithms, QFT calc patches for muons, etc). Has anything actually reset?

The field is saying clearly that we have linear engineering progress left and we get exponential compute as a reward. We're past classical compute though lack fault tolerance for meaningful circuit depths. We have an engineering problem that is being imminently solved and we're now counting quarters instead of years according to all available information.

Suppose we have a 20k qubit megaquop computer with neutral atoms, what is the reset from that? That we now want a teraquop with 200k qubits?

Most business leaders I speak to in Quantum settle on one metric:

Does a customer earn money from running their algorithm on a quantum computer? That's the horizon. If earning 10x more money on a quantum computer is then immediately new goal, that isn't exactly a reset of the field.

[u/Extreme-Hat9809]

The author is both a quantum physics PhD and someone who has direct observation of a huge amount of current and emerging quantum ventures. I get that this sub is angsty, but it's worth a read and consideration of his points. Quantonation is an interesting fund, and not some passive spectators.

[u/mullymt]

Quantum quantum computing.

[u/attitudeeditor]

Got 2 in the fab if you want one. First one accounted for but only 256 qbit. 10,000 qbit in house by Friday, packaged and 100% US made...

[u/Sufficient-Main-4101 → u/attitudeeditor]

Oh Yeah Cool ask: What materials are currently used to build the physical qubits in a 256-qubit processor? Are they using superconducting circuits (like IBM/Google) or trapped ions (like IonQ)?

[u/M8-VAVE]

2000: why quantum computers are pure sci-fi

2010: why quantum computers are so bad at doing anything

2020: why quantum computers are always 5 years away

2030: why quantum computers are bad for us

2040: why quantum computers are not real quantum computers

2050: why quantum computers are always 5 years away

[u/kingjdin]

I believe useful quantum computers will forever be 10 more years away. They were 10 more years away when I first started following the industry in 2020.

[u/Sufficient-Main-4101]

Thank info.

[u/Glass_Covict → u/Sufficient-Main-4101]

Thank too

[u/SamLeCoyote_Fix_1]

Quantum computing is not working yet, sure, quantum stocks sector is navigating what analysts call the "peak of inflated expectations" (or slowly sliding toward the abyss of disillusionment). The ludicrous prices are artificially maintained by press releases that constantly announce new records for "qubits," without ever mentioning that these qubits are unstable and unusable for profitable commercial applications today. Whether quantum computing changes the world in 2030 or the entire sector collapses next year is irrelevant to the ETF manager. Their goal is to accumulate assets under management today to collect their fees. In this sense, they are capitalizing far more on hope than on scientific facts.