Dunning–Kruger effect and Quantum lawsuit
- mansour ansari
- Jul 8, 2022
- 5 min read
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge and expertise. Some of these people are lawyers, politicians, and other technology-challenged professionals
Quantum computers are a complex concept to understand, and that can easily cause the Dunning-Krugger effect in some folks. The scientists at IonQ have been trying to build a NISQ-era quantum computer based on different variants of charged atoms and ions for many years. I have seen their original prototype as big as a large warehouse, and now, many years later, the system fits in a small room. This sort of technological advancement is not limited to IonQ. There is Google, IBM, Microsoft, and there are many more. IBM's current quantum computer contains 65 qubits using superconducting materials such as niobium and aluminum, patterned on a silicon substrate. Ionq and Honeywell use the ions, etc.
According to online reports, Google has a 54 -qubit device . I have seen 72 qubit reports. Note that not all of them are online all the time.
IBM has 65 qubits, Honeywell 64, and China has a 63-qubit device. According to IBM's prediction, IBM will have a 1,121-qubit computer by 2023. Qubit count is not the only measure of quantum computing power; each platform's underlying architecture differs from another, leading to different error rates and coherence times. When it comes to ion trapping to build gates and circuit construction, some design methodologies are proprietary and kept secret. A good example is Ionq and Honeywell. IonQ's device is designed based on ions, the charged atoms controlled by lasers. The same goes for Honeywell, which builds a similar platform with different success stories, often more promising than IonQ's hardware. There are different approaches using the same atomic particles.
Back to IBM and Google, each have a different approach wiring the qubits together; unlike the ions that are not connected by wires, lasers play that role. This architecture poses other technological challenges, and each comes with future yet unknown difficulties when it comes time to scale up qubits and performance. Naturally, with that level of complexity, many marketing promises will not materialize. All of quantum computations, the algorithm runs, and "circuit runs" on these platforms have limitations where the engine cannot stay entangled more than fractions of milliseconds or, at best, seconds. However, that is enough time in some cases to point to an answer. Some projects run the same circuit 1000 times - leading to a probabilistic outcome ( not deterministic like classical computers) or solutions. This limitation is inherent in all these quantum device architectures, whether using ions, superconducting universal platforms (wired qubits), or, photonics, etc.
July 2022:
As of today, my latest count is over 32 different startups and existing companies in 9 countries across the globe racing to build either a competitive NISQ era platform, the "noisy intermediate-scale quantum." Some of these companies trying to skip the NISQ era and jump into the next generation, which the industry calls the "Quantum Advantage era."
Quantum Advantage era is probably a few years away into the unknown future, maybe in late 2023 or sometimes in 2024. Meanwhile, the progress doesn't stop. We will hear many success stories from some of these companies; some considered small steps and others giant leaps. Note that some of these claims are simply a marketing concept, a pipe dream. But that's how we build the next generation of anything. Back in the early 80s, classical computers were going through a similar evolution.
So, the NISQ era may last another year or two. Beyond Quantum Advantage is the ultimate prize in the Quantum Supremacy era for any company that can build a necessary computing platform to solve the unsolvable and intractable problems humanity faces. A couple of years ago, Google claimed "quantum supremacy" (jumped over NISQ and Quantum Advantage era) and quickly countered IBM's response by doing the same calculation using their latest classical supercomputer. The question comes to my mind; so why not suing Google?
The bottom lines is that these computers are designed based on nature and explained by classic and quantum physics. Without sufficient imagination, the quantum computing discussion can easily overwhelm you.
Here are a few points of case allegations against IonQ.
CASE ALLEGATIONS:
"IonQ claims to "build the world's best quantum computers to solve the world's most complex problems."
All existing quantum computer platforms today make the same claim.
"The IonQ class-action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that IonQ had not yet developed a 32-qubit quantum computer."
Well, each of these quantum computing companies had set a date to deliver specific platforms with certain qubit counts, and almost all of them missed the deadlines by a few months or years. Even then, not all Qubits that are part of the count are always online. The claim is silly and sounds like a clear case of the Dunning and Grugger effect. Here is a brief version for those who don't know the Dunning Krugger effect. The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, poor expertise, or zero experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge or technologies tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge and expertise.
Case allegations:
IonQ's 11-qubit quantum computer suffered from significant error rates, rendering it useless.
Not true. These lawyers should do more homework. Many algorithms have run successfully on the existing systems (when operational) with the usual error rate and speed specific to NISQ-Era quantum platforms. There are many side-by-side comparisons of many different projects. They will have a hard time proving this in front a jury.
A significant portion of IonQ's revenue was derived from improper round-tripping transactions with related parties.
On this allegation, I have no opinion. Accounting is not my skill set.
As a result, the defendants' positive statements about IonQ's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and lacked a reasonable basis.
The same argument goes for folks who have invested in the Microsoft Quantum platform. MS has not been able to prove the existence of the Majorana Particle, which is the basis of Microsoft Topological Quantum Computing. Perhaps, we should find a lawyer willing to file a claim against the Microsoft Q team for not delivering the elusive, never seen Majorana particle. At one point, they even released a document showing the proof of Majorana, and later they had to withdraw the discovery news. Without the Majorana discovery and taming the particle, which is by definition a colossal technological breakthrough, there is no "topological" quantum computer. Microsoft knows it. Myself, I have been waiting since 2015 to see a working prototype from MS.
As of 2022, based on public documents, MS has missed several deadlines and suffered a few setbacks. Are they defrauding their stockholders? I argue that no, they are not. The same goes for the rest of the players.
While unsure what will happen with the above claim and court system, I will follow IonQ's progress. Personally, I love the idea of being able to control, manipulate and harness the power of nature through charged atoms at will. It is a fantastic source of computational power to harness the forces of nature at the atomic scale - among other ways; an ion trapping system may be one of the ways to do just that.
My 2 cents
Here is the lawsuit document
Comments