Reflections on Quantum Computing: Exploring the Unknown

When thinking about quantum computing, a lot of questions emerge. From a layperson's perspective, QC seems too complex for my mind to grasp. Over the past few days, I have been trying to understand the basics of QC and why so many people are talking about it.
Quantum computing operates with quantum bits (qubits), which can exist as a superposition of the classical states 0 and 1. This means a qubit represents a probability distribution over these states, enabling computations that explore many possibilities simultaneously.

Superposition and the Fundamental Differences of QC

To make this concept more approachable, my colleague and I discussed an analogy: a classical computer processes information in a straightforward binary framework, while a quantum computer processes information in a quantum state space. This space allows qubits to interact in highly complex ways, leveraging principles like superposition and entanglement. This fundamental difference makes quantum computing both powerful and challenging to comprehend.
Superposition enables quantum computers to explore many possible states simultaneously, which can provide significant computational advantages for certain problems. However, results are obtained only upon measurement, when the quantum state collapses. This capability allows quantum computers to perform parallel computations in ways that classical systems cannot, potentially solving problems at unprecedented scales. For example, quantum algorithms can tackle optimization problems, factor large numbers, or simulate quantum systems more effectively than classical computers in some cases.

Speculation, Market Hype, and Adoption Timelines

After studying quantum computing briefly, I realized two things: quantum computers derive from quantum mechanics theories that are strongly counterintuitive, making physics the core of this topic, and QC is not a replacement for traditional computers nor a faster computer. Instead, they will excel in specific complex problems. Despite this, there is significant speculation about when quantum computing will become a practical reality, with estimates ranging from 5-10 years to 20-50 years.
Instead of delving into the technical rabbit hole of understanding quantum computers, I decided to explore qualitative aspects. For instance, rather than estimating the time to market for QC, I focused on who is predicting 5-10 years versus 20-50 years.
The quantum hype is undeniable. Non-profitable quantum startups have seen their stocks rise exponentially in recent years. For example, Rigetti is up 900% year-to-date, D-Wave is up 700%, and IonQ is up 250%. These companies are losing money yet have multibillion-dollar valuations. Their offerings often include non-obvious products filled with technical quantum terms requiring expert interpretation. Most of these products seem experimental, limited to small-scale and controlled environments. Notably, quantum companies operate in diverse areas: some build quantum computers, others develop quantum infrastructure, algorithms, communication technologies, or quantum AI, arguably the most hyped term I’ve encountered.

The Future of Quantum Computing and Its Applications

The valuation of these companies is based solely on expectations. I agree with the market in that quantum computing will be revolutionary, the real question is when. Establishing a timeline for quantum computing’s widespread adoption is essential to justify all the current excitement. On one hand, QC companies are already selling services and products, and organizations are buying these services. Does this indicate some hidden quantum breakthrough we’re unaware of? Organizations must prepare for a quantum world, but no one truly knows how yet, speculation abounds. On the other hand, scientists argue that quantum computing is far from practical due to issues like error rates and maintenance challenges. Somewhere in the middle, we have public figures like Jensen Huang and Mark Zuckerberg making bold claims, though their biases limit their reliability.
So, who is right? Observing the market, we see some traction in experimental quantum computing, with companies collaborating to tackle small-scale problems. Efforts are underway to build necessary infrastructure, enhance encryption security, and explore other applications. The market’s approach makes sense: testing quantum technology in real-world scenarios is the best way to understand its potential.
However, that’s as far as quantum computing has progressed, it remains experimental, much like the internet in the 1950s. I lean towards the longer timeline of 20-50 years. Scientists seem to support this view as well. While I’m not a scientist, I share their skepticism of market hype and general public opinion. Scientists (not CEO scientists) have lower financial incentives and prioritize truth, though they may overlook market dynamics. Perhaps quantum computing is far away, ceteris paribus, but what if we invest trillions of dollars and attract the best minds?
Lastly, I would like to talk briefly about the quantum computer and insurance. The most promising applications of quantum computers in general seem to converge into four groups: cryptography, chemistry, climate, finance, and logistics. There are several sources about quantum computers’ potential to tackle climate change, but in my opinion, there is nothing concrete about these promises except for indirect impacts like the optimization of logistics to use less fuel. Therefore, much of the impact expected in the insurance sector from quantum computing will likely fall in cybersecurity, finance optimization problems, and logistics.
Given the fact that logistics and finance optimization on a commercial scale will need a much more advanced quantum computer with more qubits and fewer errors, the most real thing in quantum computing for insurance is post-quantum cryptography, precisely because it does not require a proper quantum computer. It relies more on quantum computer theory.
Ultimately, the truth remains unknown, and we should be careful about the noise. The only certainty is that I know how little I and most people understand about the quantum world.