Marketing outshines science in quantum computing, as innovation remains slow

When Microsoft recently unveiled Majorana 1, a quantum chip utilizing a new Topological Core architecture, the world celebrated what was hailed as a groundbreaking step toward solving "industrial-scale problems in years, not decades." However, research soon followed questioning these bold claims, suggesting the science might not be as definitive as the announcement suggested.

We spoke with Nick Reese, COO and Co-founder of Frontier Foundry, to delve into the responses surrounding Majorana 1 and the broader issue of the timing of announcements in quantum computing.

Science vs. marketing: Reese believes there is a widening chasm in quantum computing between proven scientific progress and marketing hype. "There’s a real gap here, there's a gap in the science of quantum computing versus the marketing of quantum computing," he says. Reese's company is pioneering ensemble AI platforms, orchestrating diverse algorithms to detect patterns and mitigate risks from vast datasets.

He highlights past instances, such as Google's claim of pulling compute power from a parallel universe, a statement that was made with no scientific proof to back it up. "I'm not saying that's impossible, but there's no proof of that," Reese emphasizes. The problem, he believes, is that such claims often drive up market value without the necessary evidence to substantiate them.

"Where we're going to end up eventually is, we will have cried wolf one too many times. And the development of quantum computing as a whole is going to suffer," Reese says. 

Claims and counterclaims: The excitement around Microsoft's Majorana 1 press release was palpable, with headlines crowning the company’s work as a massive leap forward for quantum computing. The claim that Majorana 1 represented a new state of matter, created using topological conductors, suggested a breakthrough in quantum mechanics. "The idea is that these qubits are easier to deal with," Reese explains. "Current qubits need to be cooled to almost absolute zero, which is a massive barrier."

However, the scientific backing for these claims quickly came under scrutiny. In fact, an editor’s note in a Nature article covering the research pointed out that the team did not achieve a new state of matter, casting doubt on the announcement. "They've been doing 17 years of research to try and figure this out, and yet the science doesn't support the press release," Reese notes. This discrepancy, he warns, might eventually lead to a loss of credibility for the field.

False starts: Reese also points out the recurring pattern in quantum computing of bold claims followed by retractions. "Quantum computing, since about 2018, has had a lot of stops and false starts where they've made a claim that they've later had to retract," he says. "There's at least four that I know of." The issue, Reese believes, lies in the market incentives surrounding these announcements. "Every time there's an announcement, not only the company making the claim, but other companies as well, see their stock value rise," he explains. 

Wrong incentives: Reese goes on to address the broader issue of incentive structures within quantum computing. He warns that the current approach may lead to long-term damage. "We’re incentivizing sensational, non-scientific announcements," he says, adding that the pursuit of quantum computing breakthroughs can sometimes emphasize publicity when stock prices seem to rise immediately. This, he fears, could lead to a loss of investor confidence in the future of the field.