A Hitchhiker's Guide to Normalizing Quantum Technologies

Last week I was participating in the 5G Techritory event in Riga, Latvia. The event is focused on the telecommunication sector, but is historically also including a wider range of digital topics. This years focus was on defense and quantum technologies. The main topics were of course Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) and Quantum Computing. The Latvian Quantum Initiative organized during the conference a series of panel discussions and co-creation events, that I had the pleasure to participate in. Thanks for Andris Ambainis, Vyacheslavs Kashcheyevs and Zane ?erpakovska for organizing the amazing event and for inviting me.

During the round table discussion of the co-creation event including Andris Ambainis and Vyacheslavs Kashcheyevs from the Latvian Quantum Initiative , Tadas Paulauskas from Quantum Lithuania , Milja Kalliosaari from IQM Quantum Computers , Leo Truksans and Evijs Taube from Latvijas Valsts radio un televīzijas centrs , Katie Low from the European Commission , Shaukat Ali from the Simula Research Laboratory , Gerbold Ménard from the Laboratoire de Physique de l'Ecole normale supérieure (LPENS) , Ingrid Linnas from Riigi Infokommunikatsiooni Sihtasutus (State Infocommunication Foundation) , Janis Paiders from the Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia and me from Kipu Quantum , the topic went fast to the current state of quantum computing. It is no secret that quantum technologies, like any new technology, will follow the Gartner hype cycle. The past years, quantum technologies were hyped very strongly, so reality setting in at some point is just normal.

Being part of the quantum community it might seems as everybody around understands and is excited about quantum technologies, however, the community is still small and outside the quantum bubble most people don't understand nor care much about it. It sounds harsh, but thats how it is. I already talked in previous articles about how people from different industries care about the usefulness of quantum computers, not the concept itself in the same way I don't care nor should have to care about how the laptop works that I am writing this text on. What I care about is the value it brings me. But, it goes further. The expectations of what quantum technologies are and what value they might have to offer are quite high outside the quantum bubble. The marketing of quantum technologies was strong, but often overhyped certain aspects of quantum technologies. Don't get me wrong, quantum computing for example is an amazing technology with many applications that will change the world around us, but it won't bring massiv value tomorrow and it will likely also not replace classical computing ever fully.

But complaining is easy. The hard part are the solutions. We came up with a couple of suggestions on how to 'normalize quantum technologies', as we called it during the discussion:

1. Education - by training the workforce of tomorrow on topics like quantum computing, quantum cryptography and quantum sensing, it will be easier to better understand the technologies and see opportunities, but also limitations, much easier. That will make quantum technologies just another tool in your digital tool set. Here the schools and universities have to become drivers of change. Not just physicists and IT people have to learn about this new technology, also students in engineering, management , finance and other topics should have at least heard about the technology and have a basic understanding of it. That is also the reason why Kipu Quantum is working currently on new functionality for the PlanQK platform, to boost the usage of quantum hardware and algorithmic within the academic community.
2. Communications - here the quantum community at large is responsible. Yes, we all now what a Hamiltonian is, but the questions is do people really need to know about it? Talking to non-quantum people should not become an opportunity to show how clever we are. But, also aggressive over-hyping is not the answer. I don't say that I am doing it always right. Pretty sure that many non-quantum people think that I am still tooFeedback technical and many quantum experts think I am cutting too many corners. There is no perfect pitch, but awareness of the problem is the first step. What I try to do is to adjust my communication to the person I am talking too, but without misrepresenting facts. That is not easy and I am also not always hitting the right tone, but it is a learning process that we all should start better earlier than later.
3. Feedback - The market will ultimately judge if quantum technologies will be successful or not. So, lets ask them. Many of the use cases discussed for years in quantum community are destroyed in seconds when talking to industry experts and sometimes the juicy applications are even unknown to us. So, talking to industry experts is fundamentally important. But, here we come back to 'Communication', talking about QUBO's, VQE's and Hamiltonians will not lead to much. A use case and value orientated discussion is what is needed. Out of my experience, there are many people out there who have heard about quantum computers and are generally interested to talk about the technology and learn more. These people are most of the time willing to share also details about their industry and pain points, of course with limitations due to confidentiality. So, talk to them.

I am looking forward of being part of this discussion and I am happy to see that in general the quantum community is aware and ready for this step. The round table discussion just showed me that we all have our role to play to make quantum technologies successful and that with cooperation and a real sense of community we can do that. Let's not fight over bread crumps, lets bake the cake together! Read you next time!