Preparing for the Next Stage of My Quantum Journey

90 min readSep 21, 2022

As I am about to complete five years of immersion in quantum computing, this stage of my quantum journey is coming to an end and I need to start preparing for the next stage of my quantum journey. I have no fixed idea what this next stage will be like, just that it will be at least somewhat different from the stage I am in the process of finishing in the next few months. This informal paper will explore the options in front of me and criteria for navigating a path forward for the next stage of my quantum journey. It’s focused on my particular personal quantum journey, but others might glean some small insights applicable to their own quantum journey.

Topics to be discussed in this paper:

In a nutshell
The initial stage of my quantum journey
Seriously, I’ve done enough writing already and feel that I’ve said all of the really important things I wanted to say
It feels like it’s time for me to pause, step back, and reflect to get some perspective before continuing
I have no clear objective for the next stage of my quantum journey
Just wait for technology and the market to catch up with what I’ve been writing about
Still very many unknowns and question marks about quantum computing for me to say that my quantum journey is fully complete
Why am I even on this quantum journey?
Quantum computing is still in the pre-commercialization stage where research is the primary focus
A lot of research is still required before quantum computing is ready to do just about anything
Do anything = production deployment to address production-scale practical real-world problems
Quantum computing will lag until funding doubles down on pre-commercialization
Just be sure to avoid premature commercialization
We’re such a long way from a practical quantum computer with any significant quantum advantage which delivers compelling business value, so why bother paying much attention until we get a lot closer?
What I’ve been doing since my last report on my quantum journey
My writing since my last report on my quantum journey
Completed the last item on my what’s next list
My best writing, introducing quantum computing
Still plenty of topics on my writing to-do list
How I got to this as a transition point
Any regrets? No, not really
Was this stage 1 or… what?
Activities I’ll likely definitely continue going forward
Progress in the quantum computing sector over the past two years
My options going forward
Options I won’t be considering
My top options
Reruns of my past papers are an appealing option
Regular or occasional public service announcements might be helpful
One promising scenario — reruns and PSAs while I wait for some technical criteria to be achieved
Continue adding new topics to my list of future topics for my writing
Updating my glossary of terms for quantum computing
I’m a novelty junkie
What would be most boring for me: a coherent roadmap with clear milestones which are achieved in a methodical manner
My default choice is to continue as before, or take a little break, try a few things differently for a few months, and then decide
What objective should I focus on?
What’s worthy of my attention?
Uncharted territory
My model is to write only when I can’t resist writing
Why I would consider a break
Potential gating factors for resuming from any prolonged break
Inflection points will get my intention
Is it an inflection point or just a milestone?
Negative inflection points
A true game-changer would get my attention
Significantly more transparency would get my attention
Potential specific technical gating factors for resuming from any prolonged break
Potential specific negative gating factors preventing or deterring me from resuming from any prolonged break
Quantum computing is still a mere laboratory curiosity
Quantum computing remains more suited for the lunatic fringe who will use anything than for normal, average technical staff
My proposal for a quantum computer with 48 fully-connected near-perfect qubits as a strong contender for the primary technical gating factor
Somebody begins using my proposed label for capabilities and requirements of quantum computers and quantum algorithms
How long might it be before I am likely to resume my quantum journey in earnest?
How long can I break before knowledge begins to become stale and I fall behind on the advancing state of the art?
I’ve made no final decision yet — just contemplating options
Inclined to just play it month to month and expect that within three to six months I’ll achieve some clarity
I could cut my work-like activity significantly or somewhat, but still remain somewhat active
Mix and match options
The best-laid plans of mice and men — ask me again in a month!
What might I do if or when my quantum journey ends?
When exactly will the current stage of my quantum journey end and the next stage begin?
How long might this next stage of my quantum journey last?
Quantum computing advances we need to see over the coming 12 to 18 to 24 months to stay on track
What single advance in quantum computing is most needed in the near future? Higher qubit fidelity
Ongoing hype about Shor’s factoring algorithm
Is quantum computing really viable? Still unclear
How much confidence do I have in the technical feasibility of quantum computing? Some, but…
My quantum journey is not predicated on proof of viability for quantum computing
Retirement
Currently I am semi-retired, and that’s fine with me
Expecting to officially retire in April/May 2024
Retirement doesn’t mean I can’t pursue technical and work-like projects, just that I have no obligation or commitment and don’t in any way feel compelled to pursue such projects
Updating my future writing topics
Is my quantum journey actually now at its end?
Have I exhausted my efforts at understanding the capabilities, limitations, and issues of quantum computing? No, but a pause could give me some fresh perspective
Plenty of runway ahead for quantum computing and my interests in understanding its capabilities, limitations, and issues
Too soon for my quantum swan song
When and where and how will I let people know what I decided as far as the next stage of my quantum journey?
Unlikely that I will be very active in quantum computing in five years
Risk of a Quantum Winter
Alternative titles for this informal paper
Never say never = 1 in 1,000 chance
My original proposal for this topic
Summary and conclusions

In a nutshell

I consider my past two years as having been quite fruitful in quantum computing. Both the work — writing — that I’ve done, and keeping up with developments and advances in the technology and the market.
Seriously, I’ve done enough writing already and feel that I’ve said all of the really important things I wanted to say.
It feels like it’s time for me to pause, step back, and reflect to get some perspective before continuing.
Any regrets? No, not really. I learned a lot and got a lot of satisfaction from my efforts over the past two and even five years. I honestly can say that I don’t know what I might have done any differently that might have left me at a better place than I am right now.
I have no clear objective at this stage. I’ve already accomplished much of what I set out to do.
Just wait for technology and the market to catch up with what I’ve been writing about. I’ve spent so much time living in the future of quantum computing. Time for some of that future to become the present.
But there are still very many unknowns and question marks about quantum computing for me to say that my quantum journey is fully complete. My speculation about the future of quantum computing is far from comprehensive or necessarily accurate.
Quantum computing has made a lot of progress in recent years. Especially since 2016.
But still a long way to go to get to a practical quantum computer and any dramatic quantum advantage.
We’re such a long way from a practical quantum computer with any significant quantum advantage which delivers compelling business value, so why bother paying much attention until we get a lot closer? It’s a balancing act. You don’t want to be too late, but being too early can be expensive, tiring, exhausting, and unproductive. There’s risk either way.
Almost five years from my first attempt to dive into quantum computing. November 2017.
Have some sense of how the next two years could go for quantum computing, but it could go a lot of different ways.
Not so sure what my own quantum journey will actually look like over the next two years.
I’ve identified quite a few options for how my quantum journey might evolve.
I’ve identified a few preferred options.
I may consider taking a break before I continue in earnest. Flexible as to how long, from a couple of months to a couple of years.
I’ve identified factors that could influence whether or when I resume activity after a break. Some technical, some non-technical.
I’ve identified a long list of technical factors and milestones that could influence whether or when I resume activity after a break.
Inflection points will get my attention. Something dramatic occurs out of the blue and suddenly everything is different. A sea change. A sudden and dramatic acceleration of progress. Some true breakthrough rather than predictable incremental progress. These moments will definitely get my attention, but there won’t be many of them, or at least they won’t be very frequent.
A true game-changer would get my attention. Something that turns the whole sector upside down in some palpably meaningful manner.
Significantly more transparency would get my attention. Vendors are being rather stingy about what they make public. More detailed product roadmaps, greater technical disclosure, detailed technical specifications, and much better technical documentation would get my attention.
Some negative factors could cause me to prolong a break.
I may wait until quantum computing is no longer a mere laboratory curiosity. Not yet ready for production deployment to address production-scale practical real-world problems. Everything people are doing just seems so… toy-like.
I may wait for The ENIAC Moment. The first significant production-scale practical real-world quantum application. Or maybe wait for the second or third one to prove that the initial success really can be replicated.
I may wait until it is no longer true that even relatively simple quantum algorithms and quantum applications require the superhuman effort of the lunatic fringe. Even relatively simple quantum computing is far beyond the abilities of mere mortal, average, normal, typical corporate technical staff. Unfortunately, this might not change until The FORTRAN Moment with a truly high-level programming model, although the availability of configurable packaged quantum solutions will permit widespread adoption of quantum solutions even if custom quantum algorithms are still beyond all but the lunatic fringe.
I may wait until I see my proposed 48 fully-connected near-perfect qubits quantum computer. Enough for a 20-bit quantum Fourier transform, and to achieve a significant quantum advantage of one million over a classical solution.
I may wait until somebody begins using my proposed label for capabilities and requirements of quantum computers and quantum algorithms. Even one vendor, but preferably several vendors. And I want to see it used for algorithm requirements as well.
I’ve identified plenty of low-intensity quantum-related activities I could likely continue even if I took a break.
I’ve decided to defer deciding which option(s) to take until after this paper is posted.
I may just try a few things over the coming months and see what seems to work best for me.
Reruns of my past papers are an appealing option. Repost on LinkedIn for papers I’ve written in the past, with specific, narrow, and timely comments related to what’s going on in the quantum computing sector at the moment. Highlight the relevance of my past writing.
Regular or occasional public service announcements might be helpful. Periodic or occasional reruns of some of my past papers for issues that simply aren’t getting enough attention.
One promising scenario — reruns and PSAs while I wait for some technical criteria to be achieved. Might be the easiest, most productive, and most effective use of my time, energy, and attention. Technical criteria might include near-perfect qubits, either full connectivity for transmon qubits or 32 to 40 qubits for trapped ion or neutral atom qubits, reasonably fine granularity of phase and probability amplitude, and 24 to 28-qubit or even 40-qubit algorithms. And also wait for quantum Fourier transform (QFT) and quantum phase estimation (QPE) for 12 to 20 qubits, when quantum Fourier transform and quantum phase estimation have become common in new quantum algorithms, and when quantum computational chemistry switches from variational methods to quantum phase estimation. And wait for Quantum Volume (QV) of 16 million to 256 million, which enables high-quality algorithms using 24 to 28 qubits.
Continue adding new topics to my list of future topics for my writing. Just not regularly writing about them. But others can write about them. What might change is that I may consider doing LinkedIn posts for some of the more interesting topics that I add to my list — just the topic title and my brief notes, but no full-length discourse. At a minimum, my writing topics, and their annotations, even if I decide not to write about them, are good food for thought that readers and connections might find helpful.
Consider a switch to a focus on the underlying physics. Gain a better insight to what makes qubits really tick. Or spin.
Consider a switch to a focus on photonics. I know so little about photonics. I’d like to evaluate whether a general-purpose photonic quantum computer is even theoretically possible. I can’t even answer the question of how two photons could interact under Bose-Einstein Statistics (BES), such as for entanglement or executing gate operations.
Consider a switch to a focus on the intersection of quantum and AI. Not the current fads of machine learning and QML, but more on how quantum effects might be needed to enable true intelligence. How quantum effects may be required for a human brain and human mind to function, intelligently. Might quantum effects be needed to achieve true higher-order human-level intelligence (AGI), or maybe needed even for basic animal intelligence. Unfortunately, this is more of a blue-sky research area rather than primed for commercialization. Still, if that’s what captures my attention, so be it.
Consider focusing on advances in classical quantum simulators rather than real quantum computers. Simulators configured with noise models approximating the real quantum computers expected in two to four years would be more practical targets for algorithm research, prototyping, and experimentation than current noisy real quantum computers. These are unexploited near-term opportunities that don’t require the time and expense of massive levels of multi-year research and engineering investments.
Consider focusing on hard-core research, don’t get distracted by misguided efforts to engage in premature commercialization. The fundamentals needed to produce better qubits with better connectivity. Pass on systems with low qubit fidelity (less than three nines), weak connectivity (not full any to any connectivity), or coarse granularity of phase and probability amplitude.
Consider a deeper dive on quantum error correction (QEC). A research topic. I was an eager booster in this area, but now I have some doubts. Need to dig deeper.
Consider a deeper dive on Shor’s factoring algorithm. A research topic. Try to answer more of the unanswered questions. Dig deeper into Miller’s 1976 primality test paper, upon which Shor’s algorithm is based.
Consider a switch to a focus on the other areas of quantum information science (QIS). Besides quantum computing, quantum information science also includes quantum communication, quantum networking, quantum metrology, and quantum sensing.
Consider more writing as I learn more. There are plenty of interesting topics on my writing list that I just don’t have enough knowledge about to write about them just yet. As I incrementally gain more knowledge, more of those topics will become ripe for writing.
Continue updating my glossary of terms for quantum computing. Maybe even try to flesh out the terms marked TBD — To Be Determined.
I could cut my work-like activity significantly or somewhat, but still remain somewhat active. Activity doesn’t need to be an all or nothing choice. I could cut my work-like activity in half, or by a quarter, or by three quarters, or even by 90%, but still remain at least somewhat active. I have the freedom to be flexible in this regard.
I don’t have to choose a single, definitive option — I can mix and match different aspects of different options. And evolve the mixing over time as the technology, market, and my interests evolve.
I don’t have any clear and definitive objective for the next stage of my quantum journey. Other than that my essential focus for quantum computing is on its capabilities, limitations, and issues.
My default choice is to continue as before, or take a little break, try a few things differently for a few months, and then decide.
My model is to write only when I can’t resist writing.
Is my quantum journey actually now at its end? It might be. I don’t think so, but it’s very possible. After all, I have completed so many of my most urgent writing interests. Let’s see in a few months.
Have I exhausted my efforts at understanding the capabilities, limitations, and issues of quantum computing? No, but a brief or even longer pause at this juncture could allow me to rest, regroup, and give me some fresh perspective on how to look at quantum computing.
Plenty of runway ahead for quantum computing and my interests in understanding its capabilities, limitations, and issues. How much of that I pursue, when, and at what pace, and at what depth remains to be seen.
I may be officially retired in two years. It’s getting to be about that time. Work and work-like activities have lost most of their appeal for me. Not sure if any of the lingering appeal will remain in two years.
No clarity as to whether I will be very involved in quantum computing two years from now.
Unlikely that I will be very active in quantum computing in five years. Unlikely three years into retirement. But never say never.
When and where and how I let people know about any decision I make will depend on my decision. Some decisions or experimentation may take months before it’s a final decision on the path and pace of my quantum journey and its next stage in particular.

The initial stage of my quantum journey

Two years ago (August 2020) I wrote up an informal paper chronicling my initial journey into quantum computing:

Seriously, I’ve done enough writing already and feel that I’ve said all of the really important things I wanted to say

There were a wide range of important points I wanted to pursue and make over the past two years and I think I’ve made all or almost all of them in my informal writing.

So the question arises, now that I’ve done all of that, what’s next or what’s left for me to do.

I still have a very long list of topics I’d like to discuss, but it’s not so clear what would be the best use of my time, energy, and attention at this stage.

It feels like it’s time for me to pause, step back, and reflect to get some perspective before continuing

Much of the time I’m on autopilot, charging ahead on a trajectory with no sense of doing anything different than staying on that same trajectory for the indefinite future. But occasionally it is good to stop and take stock to get a sense of whether a mid-course correction might be warranted.

To be clear, I don’t have any good reason to suspect that I might be on a wrong track or need any truly dramatic course correction. It’s simply a pragmatic, responsible approach to either confirm my current trajectory or make some relatively minor changes.

Sure, more dramatic changes in direction can and will be considered, but in a thoughtful manner. I don’t feel obligated to change course.

But I do feel like there is some potential that I might be too narrowly focused, and that there might be additional opportunities which might be just outside my current narrow field of view.

A little reflection and perspective wouldn’t hurt. And could do a world of good.

I have no clear objective for the next stage of my quantum journey

I’ve already accomplished much of what I set out to do, so I have no great clarity as to what I should focus on next.

I’ve already written so much of what I had intended to write about, so it’s not clear that any or much additional writing by me would necessarily add much value.

Sure, I can spend the coming months and year or two monitoring developments and tracking technology and market advancements for the quantum computing sector, but that doesn’t seem like a substantial objective per se.

Just wait for technology and the market to catch up with what I’ve been writing about

I’ve been so focused on the future, beyond the next year or two for the past five years. I’m not so sure that continuing to focus two to five or more years into the future is going to be very beneficial for me at this stage.

I’m seriously tempted to take a break, sit back and just wait for quantum technology and the market to catch up with me and my writing.

I think I would indeed like to give the technology and market time to catch up with at least some of my speculation, predictions, forecasts, and requirements that I’ve invested so much of my time, energy, and attention focused on over the past two years, even the past five years.

Still very many unknowns and question marks about quantum computing for me to say that my quantum journey is fully complete

Yes, I am finishing up this stage of my quantum journey, but that’s not to say that my journey is fully complete. There are still many unknowns and question marks that I still cannot answer even to my own satisfaction.

My ultimate quantum journey still has a long path ahead. Or so it seems, at this moment.

Why am I even on this quantum journey?

I’m actually not even pursuing quantum computing as a source of money — income or wealth. I have no job or consulting in quantum computing. And no revenue from my writing. So why am I doing it? I have three motivations:

Curious whether quantum computing is real and can ever live up to the hype.
As a backup plan should I need to seek income before I officially retire.
My interest as a technologist — what makes it tick.

Quantum computing is still in the pre-commercialization stage where research is the primary focus

Much research is still required before quantum computing will be commercially viable.

Prototyping and experimentation are warranted, but not commercialization or production deployment.

For more detail, see my paper:

A lot of research is still required before quantum computing is ready to do just about anything

To reiterate, much research is still required before quantum computing will be commercially viable. How much research?

See my paper to get a rough idea how much research is still required:

Do anything = production deployment to address production-scale practical real-world problems

To be clear, when I say that quantum computing is not ready to do much of anything, I am referring to production deployment to address production-scale practical real-world problems.

This excludes all of the following:

Research.
Training exercises.
Toy problems.
Prototyping.
Pilot projects.
Experimentation.
Evaluation.
Less than production-scale.
Computer science experiments.
Using a quantum computer to simply generate random numbers.

Those may all be perfectly valid exercises to pursue and even achieve at this stage of quantum computing — pre-commercialization, but they don’t relate to… production deployment to address production-scale practical real-world problems.

Quantum computing will lag until funding doubles down on pre-commercialization

Ultimately, it’s all about funding — for research.

Universities, government, large commercial firms, nonprofit research entities, etc., all need to dramatically boost funding for research, and other pre-commercialization activities (prototyping and experimentation.) That’s the best way to get to practical quantum computing which has true commercial potential and is a commercial reality.

For more detail, see my paper:

Just be sure to avoid premature commercialization

It’s so hard to say how long it might take before quantum computing is really ready for full-blown commercialization, but just as it’s clear that research and other pre-commercialization activities need to be the urgent priority, it is just as important or even more urgent to avoid premature commercialization.

Quantum computing simply isn’t anywhere near being ready for actual commercialization.

We need to stay in pre-commercialization until all of the significant research questions are answered and we can verify through prototyping and experimentation that the technology really is ready for production deployment to address production-scale practical real-world problems.

For more discussion of premature commercialization, see my paper:

We’re such a long way from a practical quantum computer with any significant quantum advantage which delivers compelling business value, so why bother paying much attention until we get a lot closer?

Yes, there’s a lot going on in the quantum computing sector, but we’re such a long way from a practical quantum computer that is capable and worthy of production deployment of quantum solutions for production-scale practical real-world problems and offers a significant quantum advantage — and delivers compelling business value, so why bother paying much attention until we get a lot closer?

It would be two to three years very optimistically, or more likely four to five years, or even seven years before we finally see very impressive practical quantum computers.

Sure, there’s some benefit to staying up on the technology, especially since we can’t have any idea when the critical blockbuster breakthroughs might occur.

Sure, the technology itself is interesting. At least for us technologists.

But there is something to be said for timing and not over-investing money, time, energy, resources, and attention until such investment really is likely to pay off in the not too distant future.

Business-oriented individuals, groups, and organizations are more interested in practical, profit and loss results. Now, or at least relatively soon. Not an indefinite number of years in the future.

It’s a balancing act. You don’t want to be too late, but being too early can be expensive, tiring, exhausting, and unproductive. There’s risk either way.

What I’ve been doing since my last report on my quantum journey

General tasks and activities that I’ve been engaged in since August 31, 2020:

Watching the news flow for quantum computing. Especially product announcements and research advances.
Trying to avoid the hype.
Reading academic journal papers. Or at least scanning them. Primarily on arXiv.org, or journal websites if open access.
Watching posts on LinkedIn for quantum computing connections.
Engaging in dialog with LinkedIn connections.
Making new connections on LinkedIn for quantum computing.
Google searches and reading for topics that pop up.
Writing informal papers. All posted on Medium. See below.
Updating my glossary of terms for quantum computing.
Adding new topics to my list of future topics for my writing.
Updating the annotations on topics on my list of future topics for my writing. Sometimes I have updates or additional thoughts I want to record.
Updating my existing papers as I notice items that need to be updated or added. Most of my informal papers don’t get updated, but some do.
Successfully avoided writing a book. As appealing as writing a book might seem, it is way too much of a distraction for me. A great book is a lot of effort, energy, time, and attention. A mediocre book is much easier, but not of interest to me. I don’t need to write a book just so that I can say that I wrote a book.

My writing since my last report on my quantum journey

All of my writing — all informal — is posted on Medium:

https://jackkrupansky.medium.com/

Here’s a list of all of my writing on quantum computing:

Here’s the list of all of my informal papers since my last report on my quantum journey, by year:

2020:

August 31. My Journey into Quantum Computing.
October 1. Little Data With a Big Solution Space — the Sweet Spot for Quantum Computing.
October 14. Why Is IBM’s Notion of Quantum Volume Only Valid up to About 50 Qubits?
November 12. Beware of Quantum Algorithms Dependent on Fine Granularity of Phase.
December 23. My Quantum Computing Wish List for Christmas 2020 and New Year 2021.

2021:

February 24. Preliminary Thoughts on Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing, Quantum Error Correction, and Logical Qubits.
Note the three month gap — I was doing a massive review of several years of notes — electronic and index cards — and compiling an updated and annotated list of all of my potential topics for future writing. Originally posted in October 2019, but frequently updated. Future Topics for My Writing on Quantum Computing
May 20. Distance Scales for Interconnecting Quantum Computing Elements.
June 10. Nines of Qubit Fidelity.
June 29. Timeline of Early Classical Computers.
July 7. What Is Dramatic Quantum Advantage?
July 20. Thoughts on the IBM Quantum Hardware Roadmap.
August 10. Five Major Use Cases for a Classical Quantum Simulator.
August 25. Staged Model for Scaling of Quantum Algorithms.
September 8. Where Are All of the 40-qubit Quantum Algorithms?
September 22. Fractional Quantum Advantage — Stepping Stones to Dramatic Quantum Advantage.
October 6. Beyond NISQ — Terms for Quantum Computers Based on Noisy, Near-perfect, and Fault-tolerant Qubits.
October 20. Essential and Urgent Research Areas for Quantum Computing.
November 3. Model for Pre-commercialization Required Before Quantum Computing Is Ready for Commercialization.
November 17. Prescription for Advancing Quantum Computing Much More Rapidly: Hold Off on Commercialization but Double Down on Pre-commercialization.
December 1. My Quantum Computing Wish List for Christmas 2021 and New Year 2022.
December 15. Preliminary Thoughts on the IBM 127-qubit Eagle Quantum Computer.
December 29. What Is a Near-perfect Qubit?

2022 (so far, as of August 27):

January 12. Configurable Packaged Quantum Solutions Are the Greatest Opportunity for Widespread Adoption of Quantum Computing.
January 26. Three Stages of Adoption for Quantum Computing: The ENIAC Moment, Configurable Packaged Quantum Solutions, and The FORTRAN Moment.
February 9. Quantum Computing Advances We Need to See Over the Coming 12 to 18 to 24 Months to Stay on Track.
February 23. What Single Advance in Quantum Computing Is Most Needed in the Near Future?
March 9. Risk Is Rising for a Quantum Winter for Quantum Computing in Two to Three Years.
March 23. Speculative Preview of the IBM 433-qubit Osprey Quantum Computer.
April 6. Need for an Association for Quantum Computing Machinery.
April 20. What Is Quantum Information?
May 4. Call for Intel to Focus on Components for Others to Easily Build Their Own Quantum Computers.
May 18. Proposal for a Quantum Capabilities Label for Quantum Computers, Algorithms, and Applications.
June 1. Is Lack of Fine Granularity of Phase and Probability Amplitude the Fatal Achilles Heel Which Dooms Quantum Computing to Severely Limited Utility?
June 15. 48 Fully-connected Near-perfect Qubits As the Sweet Spot Goal for Near-term Quantum Computing.
June 29. Risks of Premature Commercialization of Quantum Computing.
July 13. What Is a Quantum Computer?
July 27. What Is Quantum Computing?
August 9. Thoughts on the 2022 IBM Quantum Roadmap Update.
August 24. Initial Thoughts on Personas, Use Cases, and Access Patterns for Quantum Computing.
September 7. Elevator Pitch for Quantum Computing.
September 21. Preparing for the Next Stage of My Quantum Journey.

For an annotated list of my possible topics for my future writing:

I endeavor to capture my initial thoughts on each topic right next to the suggested topic title.

Completed the last item on my what’s next list

Maybe it’s notable that I’ve actually completed the very last item on my What’s next? list from my last quantum journey report:

One of these days I’ll be tempted to take a shot at writing What is Quantum Computing?

I just posted that back in July:

My best writing, introducing quantum computing

Maybe the main accomplishment of my writing over the past two years is the completion of a small set of informal papers which constitute a reasonably high-level introduction to quantum computing.

This is it, my suggested reading list for those attempting to get started in quantum computing:

I don’t have my own paper on getting started with hands-on quantum programming — the topic is covered quite well by a shelf full on introductory books, but the IBM Qiskit Textbook is a decent tutorial after digesting at least an introductory level from my papers listed above:

Learn Quantum Computation using Qiskit

A major reason that I have religiously stayed away from that aspect of quantum computing is my fervent belief that quantum computing needs a high-level programming model. Until then, we’re stuck with a low-level machine language which is not suitable for most application developers. Other people seem quite eager to dive into that machine language-level of coding, but I’ll stay focused on the high-level aspects of quantum computing. But I do expect that eventually I’ll likely write a What Is Quantum Computation? Paper once we do have a high-level programming model for quantum computing.

Still plenty of topics on my writing to-do list

To be clear, despite all of the writing I have done, there are still plenty of topics left for me to write about on my writing to-do list.

So any transition in my quantum journey is not about running out of things to do or that I’ve finished everything on my list.

I have indeed finished all or most of my most urgent writing priorities, but there are still plenty of interesting topics on my list:

How I got to this as a transition point

So, why now? Why did I need to consider a transition in my quantum journey right now as opposed to six months ago, a year ago, or some other time? How did I get to this point? Here’s what happened…

Two years ago, at the end of July and early August of 2020 I had a similar moment of considering whether I might be reaching a point where I could or should consider taking a break, to wait for the technology and market to catch up with my thinking and writing. That’s when I wrote up my first report on my quantum journey. But I concluded that as appealing as a break might be, there was so much going on that appealed to my attention. So, I just kept blasting forward, full steam ahead, never looking back.

Then just a year ago I was at a similar point, although I had made a lot of progress with my writing. At the end of July and beginning of August 2021 I had essentially decided that I had just one last major writing topic that I really wanted to get out of the way before a pause in my writing. But it was important enough that I figured the summer doldrums of vacations in August would be a very poor time for my last big hurrah. So, I decided to hold off on that one big topic until September when most people would be back at work and school.

So, I fell back on some other topics on my writing list for August 2021.

But along the way, my one last topic grew in scope and I realized that it should be split into two topics, with the first setting the stage or the foundation, and the second building on that foundation.

And then the first half of the split topic grew in scope and size as well.

In fact, that first half of one topic wasn’t completed and posted until late in October 2021.

The basic original topic was my thesis that the best way to make more progress in quantum computing was to complete a lot more fundamental research, that the existing technology wasn’t even close to being ready for commercialization.

So, the first half of the topic was on research:

That was the foundation.

But as I was progressing on the main part of my thesis I realized that it itself was too large, so I split it in two as well, giving me three separate informal papers.

The second part focused on what I called pre-commercialization, the stage which needed to be completed before serious commercialization could begin. This stage would be marked by research, as outlined in the first paper, as well as prototyping, and experimentation, all based on the research results. Only once the research had produced results sufficient for prototypes to demonstrate the desired level of function, capacity, and performance — and quality — could organizations proceed to commercialization.

So, the second informal paper focused on this whole pre-commercialization stage and was posted two weeks later in the first week of November 2021:

The third paper, completing my thesis by building on the foundation put in place by the first two papers was posted two weeks later in the middle of November 2021:

I was exhausted by then and the holidays were getting close.

I had originally intended that paper (or collection of three papers as it turned out) to be my final work for the moment and to take a break.

But a few additional topics surfaced for me that I figured might take me through January and maybe even February. What’s just two more months, right?

And IBM introduced its 127-qubit Eagle quantum processor, which seemed to beg for my attention.

So, to make a long story short, one thing led to another and January and February 2022 turned into March and April, and then May and June.

There was always some fresh new topic demanding my attention.

And somewhere along the way I finally realized that there was a fourth paper to go along the three previous papers for my thesis from a year ago — premature commercialization was a topic embedded in the second and third papers, but I discovered that it deserved to have its own paper since I wanted to explicitly call attention to that in online posts and other writing of my own, without having to explain how to find the material embedded in those two earlier papers.

The fourth informal paper, on premature commercialization to balance between pre-commercialization and commercialization:

And finally in June I decided to bite the bullet and attack the writing topic of What Is Quantum Computing? I had been unsure how to approach that topic without it being either a trivial puff piece or a full-length book.

But I had bitten off the thorny topic of What Is Quantum Information? in April, and I already had a paper on quantum effects, so I actually had a good foundation to attack the topic without having to choose between a puff piece and a full-length book.

I fully intended for it to be my last paper before taking a break, but it took longer than expected and turned into two separate papers, so what was originally intended to be finished by the end of June was not done until late July.

But even then a couple of additional writing topics just seemed like they really needed to be addressed before pausing. Plus this paper.

Long story short, by the time you read this, finally my last informal paper before turning to focusing on reflecting on my quantum journey and considering what the next stage of my journey should look like, it will likely be mid-September 2022.

There are actually plenty of additional topics I could write about, and even a few that I feel probably do need my attention within the next couple of months, but this time I really do feel like I’ve covered enough of the material that I consider most important, and that a true break really may be warranted.

I’m not going to prejudge whether I do or don’t do any serious writing in the months right after mid-September 2022, but at least I feel confident that there is no pressing and compelling need for me to continue writing in the near term in the same way and at the same pace as I felt was appropriate two years ago, one year ago, six months ago, and even just three months ago.

So, that’s how I got to this juncture of contemplating how my quantum journey could or should evolve.

Any regrets? No, not really

The past two years — even five years — have been quite a wild ride. Sure, there are plenty of things I might have wished had played out differently, or done differently myself, but I honestly can say that I don’t really have any significant regrets.

I learned a lot and got a lot of satisfaction from my efforts over the past two and even five years.

I honestly can say that I don’t know what I might have done any differently that might have left me at a better place than I am right now.

Was this stage 1 or… what?

Which stage am I just completing now? Some possibilities:

Is it really stage 1? Maybe. That’s the presumption.
Stage 2. Maybe from November 2017 to 2020 was really stage 1. And before November 2017 was stage 0. Did I just complete two stages — initial awareness and learning, then hitting a level of comprehension and articulation?
Stage 3. Maybe before November 2017 was really stage 1, 2018 to 2020 was stage two, and 2020–2022 was stage 3.
Stage 0. I’m still learning a lot of essentially fundamental aspects of quantum computing. There’s a lot more nuance, depth, and breadth than most people let on. And the technology still has a long way to go until it’s ready to be commercialized. Maybe stage 1 should wait until commercialization is underway or about to commence.

Maybe I’ll just have to refer to the current stage as “this” stage and the next stage as the “next” stage. Really!

The simplest path is to say that this has all been the first stage, from November 2017 until whenever I officially begin the next stage, sometime in the next couple of months.

Activities I’ll likely definitely continue going forward

Actually, it will be virtually all of the activities I currently pursue except for regular and frequent posting of my long but informal papers, and likely with a somewhat lower level of intensity:

Watching the news flow for quantum computing. Especially product announcements and research advances.
Trying to avoid the hype.
Reading academic journal papers. Or at least scanning them. Primarily on arXiv.org, or journal websites if open access.
Watching posts on LinkedIn for quantum computing connections.
Engaging in dialog with LinkedIn connections.
Making new connections on LinkedIn for quantum computing.
Google searches and reading for topics that pop up.
Only occasionally writing informal papers. All posted on Medium.
Updating my glossary of terms for quantum computing.
Adding new topics to my list of future topics for my writing. Just not regularly writing about them. But others can write about them.
Updating the annotations on topics on my list of future topics for my writing. Sometimes I have updates or additional thoughts I want to record.
Updating my existing papers as I notice items that need to be updated or added. Most of my informal papers don’t get updated, but some do.
Successfully avoid writing a book. As appealing as writing a book might seem, it is way too much of a distraction for me. A great book is a lot of effort, energy, time, and attention. A mediocre book is much easier, but not of interest to me. I don’t need to write a book just so that I can say that I wrote a book.

And there is a laundry list of other tasks in the What’s next? section of my 2020 report on my quantum journey that I may fall back on as well.

That’s still a lot of activity, but I likely will continue most of that, albeit with a significantly lower level of intensity on a daily or even weekly basis.

Progress in the quantum computing sector over the past two years

This is an oversimplification, but suitable for the purposes of this informal paper.

Over the past two years we’ve seen:

More qubits.
More vendors of quantum computing hardware.
More quantum computers.
But only modest improvement in qubit fidelity.
Lots of prototyping.
Recognition that quantum computers can excel at generating true random numbers.
No attention being given to fine granularity of phase and probability amplitude.
Too much hype.
Too little transparency.
No significant increase in algorithm complexity.
No significant attention to algorithmic building blocks.
No attention given to formulation of a high-level programming model.
No significant improvement in classical quantum simulator technology.
Some tools and support software here and there.
Nothing approaching production-scale applications for practical real-world problems.
No detectable progress on implementing Shor’s factoring algorithm.
No real progress in using quantum Fourier transform (QFT).
No real progress in using quantum phase estimation (QPE).
No significant progress in quantum error correction and achieving perfect logical qubits.

Sure, there really have been a lot of smaller advancesss, but not so much in a way that actually has a dramatic impact on designers of quantum algorithms and developers of quantum applications, or the achievement of any significant quantum advantage — the stuff I care about the most.

To be clear, I do care deeply about the foundational underlying technology, but only to the extent that it actually has a dramatic positive impact at the highest algorithm and application levels, and leads to significant if not dramatic quantum advantage.

My options going forward

The possibilities that I am considering include, but are not limited to:

Continue as I have. No significant change. Maybe a little fine tuning.
Continue writing but at a slower pace. Maybe monthly or bimonthly.
Continue writing but only occasionally rather than regularly. Whenever I feel the urge to write, rather than something every two weeks or monthly like clockwork.
Take a short break, then continue as I have. Maybe just a month or two or three max. Time to reflect and adjust priorities.
Short break and then reevaluate. No prejudgment as to what might come next. Just a little time to reflect. (In truth, I’m already reflecting as I write this paper!)
Modest slowdown for 3–6 months, then continue. No full-stop break per se, but maybe just write less frequently for a few months before deciding what path to resume, with the default being to resume with my current writing pace of every two weeks.
Continue writing at my current pace, but with some change of focus. Unclear what that change of focus might be, but there are plenty of options.
Reruns of my past papers. No significant new writing, at least not on any regular basis, just highlight key points from my past writing which are especially relevant to issues that are popping up at the moment. Demonstrate that my past writing has current relevance.
Regular or occasional public service announcements might be helpful. Periodic or occasional reruns of some of my past papers for issues that simply aren’t getting enough attention.
Post on LinkedIn as I add topics to my list of topics for future papers. This generally includes an annotation with few short comments about the topic. Others might find these useful or interesting — and easier to read than a full-length paper.
Radio silence, at least for a time. Either until some noteworthy events capture my attention, or maybe for some fixed period of time — a few months, maybe — before I come up for air and post a status update based on what may have transpired — or not — during my silence. Just because I might go silent doesn’t imply that I might be inactive, just not communicative. I’m not terribly inclined to opt for strict radio silence, as opposed to simply reducing my level of engagement, but it is still an option worth considering, possibly at particular times or stages even if not for indefinitely extended periods of time.
Switch to a focus on the underlying physics. Gain a better insight to what makes qubits really tick. Or spin.
Switch to a focus on photonics. I know so little about photonics. I’d like to evaluate whether a general-purpose photonic quantum computer is even theoretically possible. I can’t even answer the question of how two photons could interact under Bose-Einstein Statistics (BES), such as for entanglement or executing gate operations.
Switch to a focus on the intersection of quantum and AI. Not the current fads of machine learning and QML, but more on how quantum effects might be needed to enable true intelligence. How quantum effects may be required for a human brain and human mind to function, intelligently. Might quantum effects be needed to achieve true higher-order human-level intelligence (AGI), or maybe needed even for basic animal intelligence. Unfortunately, this is more of a blue-sky research area rather than primed for commercialization. Still, if that’s what captures my attention, so be it.
Focus on advances in classical quantum simulators rather than real quantum computers. Simulators configured with noise models approximating the real quantum computers expected in two to four years would be more practical targets for algorithm research, prototyping, and experimentation than current noisy real quantum computers. These are unexploited near-term opportunities that don’t require the time and expense of massive levels of multi-year research and engineering investments.
Focus on hard-core research, don’t get distracted by misguided efforts to engage in premature commercialization. The fundamentals needed to produce better qubits with better connectivity. Pass on systems with low qubit fidelity (less than three nines), weak connectivity (not full any to any connectivity), or coarse granularity of phase and probability amplitude.
Deeper dive on quantum error correction (QEC). A research topic. I was an eager booster in this area, but now I have some doubts. Need to dig deeper.
Deeper dive on Shor’s factoring algorithm. A research topic. Try to answer more of the unanswered questions. Dig deeper into Miller’s 1976 primality test paper, upon which Shor’s algorithm is based.
Switch to a focus on the other areas of quantum information science (QIS). Besides quantum computing, quantum information science also includes quantum communication, quantum networking, quantum metrology, and quantum sensing.
More writing as I learn more. There are plenty of interesting topics on my writing list that I just don’t have enough knowledge about to write about them just yet. As I incrementally gain more knowledge, more of those topics will become ripe for writing.
Updating my glossary of terms for quantum computing. Try to flesh out more of the TBD entries.
Blogging or LinkedIn posts. Enough long-form writing. Focus on short, pithy posts.
LinkedIn commentary posts. Comment on news or timely topics. Make short, specific points.
Take a longer break, months or more, continue only when something noteworthy pops up. See the section Potential gating factors for resuming from any prolonged break.
Inflection points will get my attention. Something dramatic occurs out of the blue and suddenly everything is different. A sea change. A sudden and dramatic acceleration of progress. Some true breakthrough rather than predictable incremental progress. These moments will definitely get my attention, but there won’t be many of them, or at least they won’t be very frequent.
A true game-changer would get my attention. Something that turns the whole sector upside down in some palpably meaningful manner.
Significantly more transparency would get my attention. Vendors are being rather stingy about what they make public. More detailed product roadmaps, great technical disclosure, detailed technical specifications, and much better technical documentation would get my attention.
Rip van Winkle sleep for two years. The technology and market really do need that long to catch up with me. Maybe only 18 months. Maybe two and a half or even three years. Not a whole lot of value for me to add beyond what I’ve already done and written extensively.
Pause until completion of pre-commercialization. Wait for all of the essential research to be completed and prototyping and experimentation shows that the technology really is ready to be commercialized. When quantum computing is ready to begin commercialization in earnest. Or possibly six months before this milestone is expected. Or maybe even a year.
Pause until commercialization has begun in earnest. Not just when pre-commercialization appears to have been completed, but when there are palpable signs that commercialization has actually begun with some sense of seriousness.
Set an expiration date but continue as I have until then. Like maybe another three, six, nine months, a year, fifteen months, or eighteen months before drawing my quantum journey to a nominal close. But I could restart if advances and my interest warrant.
Continue as I have until retirement. Right up to the last day. The end of April 2024.
Set an expiration date based on my official retirement but continue as I have until then. If I officially retire in April 2024, that would be in about 20 months. Maybe 2–3 months before that. Maybe six months before that. Or, maybe a full year before that to focus on getting into a cadence for actual official retirement. At a minimum, that would give me at least another eight months to culminate my quantum journey, but call it a year.
Early retirement. Like maybe this report marks the end of my quantum journey. Although I could restart it at any time, such as when any dramatic advance occurs. Or just pop up for each major advance.
Retire early, with the option of restarting if developments attract my attention. Seriously, I really have done enough already.
My quantum journey is now at its end. This is it, this is my final post of my quantum journey. By the time you read this my quantum journey will have ended. Sure, maybe there will be a few stragglers, some lingering posts that I forgot about, but no new wave of posts on any kind of regular schedule.
Cut my work-like activity significantly or somewhat, but still remain somewhat active. Activity doesn’t need to be an all or nothing choice. I could cut my work-like activity in half, or by a quarter, or by three quarters, or even by 90%, but still remain at least somewhat active. I have the freedom to be flexible in this regard.
Mix and match. Some combination of various aspects of any of the above options. A little of this, a little of that. But choose carefully.
Trial and error of aspects of the various options over 3–6 months. There might be some interesting possibilities I am not aware of. Just try some things even if they seem a little risky or uncertain to be slamdunk successes.
Experiment for the next 3–6 months. May be methodical sometimes. May be risky sometimes. But with an attitude of discovering a new path that delivers great results for me — that I find very satisfying and very productive. Maybe it means going slower sometimes, and faster at other times, but picking and choosing the pace that seems right for me at the moment.
Plenty of possibilities of things that could attract me in the coming months and years, but how many of them will actually happen in the next period of time. Can be open to anything that pops up. Have to be careful to avoid setting expectations to levels that may not be likely to be achieved in the next period of time (three to six to nine months or a year or so.)

To be clear, all of these options are open. Nothing is final or even near final. My mind remains open to all options.

Options I won’t be considering

My philosophy is never say never, but these are options that I won’t be considering:

Focus on reviews and responses for announcements, press releases, and news. I don’t feel that I would be adding a lot of value, except in some cases, a minority of cases.
Policing hype. Hype patrol. A thankless, never-ending task. It can be appealing at times, but rarely productive. Not a productive use of my energy.
Policing anti-hype. Legitimate and thoughtful criticism is fine, even great, but rabid Luddite-style exaggerated criticism and outright and even irrational opposition to quantum computing is just as counterproductive as excessively-cheery hype. But, once again, it is a thankless, never-ending task. It can be appealing at times, but rarely productive. Not a productive use of my energy.
Policing misleading commercialization claims. Same as for hype. These are situations where people are saying a product or service is “commercial” — meaning somebody is supposedly paying money for it, but the product or service is simply not capable or ready to support production-scale practical real-world quantum applications ready for production deployment. Typically it simply means offering pre-commercial products and services for advanced technology groups to do research, prototyping, and experimentation to evaluate the technology, but not ready for production-scale production deployment.
Policing misuse of vocabulary. Ditto as for policing hype. In fact, much of the hype is simply misleading use of terminology.
Detailed evaluations of products and services.
Product reviews. I may occasionally comment on product or service offerings, but not full product reviews and not on any regular basis.
Hands-on work. Designing algorithms. Writing code. No longer my thing. I’ll leave it to the younger generation.
Employment. No way. Zero interest. That’s in the past for me.
Consulting. Well, maybe, some, if it has enough appeal to me besides the money. But barring unusual and exceptional situations, this option is off the table for me.
Start a company. That can certainly be enticing and intoxicating, but I’m well past that stage of my career.
Technical advisor to a startup. Interesting, but if my past writing doesn’t provide them with the advice they need, there’s nothing else for me to add personally.
Technical advisor to an established firm or organization. Ditto. They can just read what I’ve already written.
Venture capital. Not too many years ago I would have leaped at the opportunity to work at a venture capital firm, but these days… not so much. Years ago I would have considered a junior position, but no longer. Worst of all, I consider quantum computing to still be at the research and pre-commercialization stage, where venture capital with a short attention span would be inappropriate.
Market analyst. Again, quantum computing is still deep in the pre-commercialization stage. Planning for commercialization is still grossly premature.
Securities analyst. Again, premature commercialization is a really bad idea at this stage.
Technology journalism. Just not interested.
Writing or blogging for a website. Just not interested.
Conferences. I’m just not a big conference person.
Courses. Not a big formal training person.
Pursuing an advanced college degree. I’m not a big formal education person.
Anything requiring money. My budget is $0 — zero.
Write a book. That has some appeal, but it’s too much of a labor of love for me to get too invested into it. Writing informally is more my style.
Reading books. Again, not my style. We have the Internet, plenty of free, online material, including online books. Lecture notes and academic papers are more my style.
Podcasts. Just not my thing. And implies a deeper involvement, which I don’t expect at this juncture.
Videos. Ditto. As with podcasts.
Writing formal papers. Not my thing. Too much effort. And I don’t really have the credentials for that.
Posting some of my writing on arXiv. Well, I could do that, and may even try it, but only if there is sufficient demand. Otherwise, it’s just not my thing. And still too much effort.

My top options

No sense of any commitment or limitation here, but simply to highlight a small number of the many options:

Continue as before, but maybe at a slower writing pace.
Short break and then reevaluate. No prejudgment as to what might come next
Short break, then continue as before. Reflect and adjust priorities, a little.
Reruns of my past papers. No significant new writing, at least not on any regular basis, just highlight key points from my past writing which are especially relevant to issues that are popping up at the moment. Demonstrate that my past writing has current relevance.
Regular or occasional public service announcements might be helpful. Periodic or occasional reruns of some of my past papers for issues that simply aren’t getting enough attention.
Post on LinkedIn as I add topics to my list of topics for future papers. This generally includes an annotation with few short comments about the topic. Others might find these useful or interesting — and easier to read than a full-length paper.
LinkedIn commentary posts. Comment on news or timely topics. Make short, specific points.
Wait for near-perfect qubits. Wait until we commonly see qubit fidelity of 3.5 nines or better. Or maybe even 3.25 nines. Or maybe hold out until 3.75 or even 4 nines of qubit fidelity are common.
Rip van Winkle sleep for two years. The technology and market really do need that long to catch up with me. Maybe only 18 months. Maybe two and a half or even three years.
Retire early, with the option of restarting if developments attract my attention. Seriously, I really have done enough already.

Reruns of my past papers are an appealing option

A lot of my papers — most of them — are more relevant to the future than to the present. I usually write about whatever interests me, when it interests me, regardless of what’s going on in the market at the moment. But at some point the future will become now, in which case my past papers will eventually take on significantly more relevance than when I originally wrote them.

So it seems reasonable to repost on LinkedIn for papers I’ve written in the past, along with specific, narrow, and timely comments related to what’s going on in the quantum computing sector at the moment. Highlight the relevance of my past writing to the present of the market.

Not merely randomly reposting just for the sake of reposting or what might interest me, but first sensing what people and the market need most in any given moment, and then reposting one or more of my past papers which can best speak to the issues of the moment for people and the market, as opposed to whatever might interest me personally in the moment.

Regular or occasional public service announcements might be helpful

People tend to get stuck, sidetracked, or distracted, taking their eye off the ball and losing sight of the big picture. Occasional or even periodic reminders about key issues can be helpful. Periodic or occasional reruns of some of my past papers for issues that simply aren’t getting enough attention could be very helpful.

All too often, I make quite a few points in one of my informal papers. A PSA (public service announcement) could focus on a single, specific point on some issue. Or maybe a couple of related points. But it should be a single coherent thought that the reader can quickly and easily digest, not some lengthy or complex discourse.

Sometimes people are just too busy and distracted to hear a message when it is first delivered. Sometimes they just need to hear the message when they are ready to hear the message, but nobody can know when that time might be. So, a little occasional reminding could work wonders.

The trick is to find the right balance between not too much and not too little. Not too frequent and not too infrequent.

Maybe a few every month or even every week, but not a bunch every single day. One or two or three a week might be the optimal range for frequency. And lean towards less frequent unless triggered by news or activities which suggest that a PSA is more urgently needed.

One promising scenario — reruns and PSAs while I wait for some technical criteria to be achieved

Not to suggest that this is actually my most likely scenario, but one that shows an interesting degree of promise is:

Main focus of my effort would be reruns and public service announcements (PSAs) for my existing papers. Focus each post on making a specific point, rather than simply trying to call attention to my writing.
Wait for near-perfect qubits before getting more serious. Wait for 3.5 nines of qubit fidelity. Maybe 3.25 nines. Or maybe hold out for 3.75 or even 4 nines.
Wait for either full connectivity for transmon qubits or 32 to 40 qubits for trapped ion or neutral atom qubits. And near-perfect qubits as well.
Wait for reasonably fine granularity of phase and probability amplitude. Sufficient for 12 to 20-bit quantum Fourier transform.
Wait for 24 to 28-qubit algorithms. Likely implies that we have fully-connected near-perfect qubits, as well as reasonably fine granularity for phase and probability amplitude. Or maybe hold out for 40-qubit algorithms.
Wait for quantum Fourier transform (QFT) and quantum phase estimation (QPE) for 12 to 20 qubits. When quantum Fourier transform and quantum phase estimation have become common in new quantum algorithms. When quantum computational chemistry switches from variational methods to quantum phase estimation.
Wait for Quantum Volume (QV) of 16 million to 256 million. Enabling high-quality algorithms using 24 to 28 qubits.

And it’s all of those technical criteria which must be met, although there might be exceptions when a sufficient fraction of them have been met or are reasonably close to being met.

Reruns and PSAs while I wait for the technical criteria might be the easiest, most productive, and most effective use of my time, energy, and attention.

Continue adding new topics to my list of future topics for my writing

I’m constantly coming up with new topics to write about. I never get around to most of them, but I do add them to a list for future reference, and sometimes I eventually do write about some of them. I expect to continue to do so — adding to the list, but just not regularly writing about them.

The entries in my list are typically annotated with my notes. A mini-outline of sub-topics, questions, and issues that should be included if I decide to write about the topic.

What might change is that I may consider doing LinkedIn posts for some of the more interesting topics that I add to my list. Just the topic title and my brief notes, but no full-length discourse.

I might also do LinkedIn posts for some of the older topics which I never managed to get to, hoping that somebody else might write about the topic. Or if there is enough interest expressed, I might decide to write about it myself.

At a minimum, my writing topics, and their annotations, even if I decide not to write about them, are good food for thought that readers and connections might find helpful.

It’s also possible that others might spot some of the topics on my list and take enough interest to write about them. That’s fine with me.

My future topics list can be found here:

Updating my glossary of terms for quantum computing

I tend to add an entry to my glossary of terms for quantum computing every time I stumble into a term I don’t recognize. It currently has over 3,000 entries. When possible, I actually supply a clear, concise, and complete definition for each term I add, but unfortunately too frequently I am unable to quickly come up with a clear, concise, and complete definition for each term I add, so quite a few are marked TBD — To Be Determined.

I hope to continue adding terms to my glossary no matter which options I select to pursue for the next stage of my quantum journey.

But one of the new options is to go back and try to flesh out at least some of those useless TBD entries.

My glossary of terms for quantum computing can be found here:

I’m a novelty junkie

I’m amazed that I’ve lasted so long in my quantum journey — almost five years, so far. Usually I begin to get bored much quicker. I’m generally really into something when it is new and exciting. Once it gets tired, stale, repetitive, static, and stable, I lose interest and move on. Luckily the quantum sector is quite dynamic. So it’s managed to attract and hold my interest.

We’ll have to see how much longer it can do so.

A lot of advances in quantum computing are promised and expected, so that limits the excitement when they actually happen.

So, even if a lot of significant and dramatic advances occur in the next two years, the real question is whether there will be enough surprises — positive surprises that is — to hold my attention.

What would be most boring for me: a coherent roadmap with clear milestones which are achieved in a methodical manner

What would cause me to become most bored and quickly lose interest in quantum computing?

That’s easy.

I’ve already mentioned that I’m a novelty junkie. I thrive on the new and novel. The unexpected.

If a robust, detailed, and coherent roadmap were developed for quantum computing, with detailed and credible milestones, going out five to ten years and beyond, and then if people are consistently achieving those milestones in a very methodical and predictable manner, then there would be nothing left for me to focus my energy, attention, and enthusiasm on. There would literally be nothing left for me to do. Or at least nothing that interested me.

But, I don’t expect this to happen.

To be clear, I’m not talking about a roadmap for my own efforts per se, but a roadmap for the entire quantum computing sector overall, as a whole. Although, in truth, a detailed roadmap for my own work might also cause me to get bored rather quickly.

Too much about quantum computing is unknown and uncertain — so much research is left to do, and research and development are evolving at a haphazard and inconsistent pace. There are surprises — and disappointments — at nearly every turn. In short, there’s plenty for me to do, plenty for me to focus on. Plenty to surprise me. Plenty to keep a novelty junkie engaged.

My default choice is to continue as before, or take a little break, try a few things differently for a few months, and then decide

My default choice is to not make a lot of major changes right now, and to roughly continue as before.

Taking a little break first has some appeal as well. Time to reflect and try a few changes as well.

Reruns of my past writing also has significant appeal and requires little effort. Demonstrate the relevance of my writing to the here and now.

Writing at a slower pace has some appeal as well. I really have covered my top writing priorities, so I have no urgent need to write as much.

And then in a few months I can step back and review my options again and maybe decide on a new path based on new information and new insight on the evolving technology and market, and my own evolving interests.

Maybe the end of the year would be a good time to decide. Or, in January, since I like to tell people that not much of anything useful happens in the second half of December due to the holidays.

But this is only my default choice, and not necessarily my top or best choice. It’s the path of least resistance.

What objective should I focus on?

It’s a great question, but I don’t have any truly satisfying answer as to what my primary objective should be for the next stage of my quantum journey, other than simply to continue my overall interest in quantum computing — its capabilities, limitations, and issues, as expressed in my paper just over two years ago (June 2020):

What’s worthy of my attention?

That’s another great question with no truly satisfying answer. Indeed, what exactly is worthy of my attention?

Maybe it’s simply a criterion I need to apply whenever some development or issue or random thought pops up on my radar — is this item worthy of my attention?

This is a topic I need to ponder some more.

Uncharted territory

The simple truth is that the quantum computing sector is uncharted territory. And my relationship to the sector is as well. Sure, people have plenty of expectations, vendors have roadmaps, and plenty of promises have been made, but nobody knows how things will really play out. Ditto for me.

Nobody knows:

Which promising avenues simply won’t pan out.
What unexpected discoveries lurk around every corner.
Which large projects can be completed much more quickly than expected.
Which modest projects will take much longer than expected.
Aspects of physics which have not yet been discovered.
Which apparent limits of physics can be transcended simply with clever tricks.

Being open and flexible or agile is frequently the best we can do.

Expecting that all features of a map or chart are unchanging and unchangeable is probably the worst that we can do.

My model is to write only when I can’t resist writing

I try not to approach writing as an obligation or commitment or anything resembling a job or job responsibility. Instead, I write only when I feel like writing. Or as I like to put it, I only write when I can’t resist writing.

The goal is to make writing special, very unlike work or a job.

Why I would consider a break

To put it most simply, most of my thinking and writing has been well ahead of the current technology, current market, and even most of the current thinking about the near-term prospects for quantum computing. It’s just really starting to feel as if I need to stop and wait while the technology and market catch up with me.

Seriously, there’s no compelling reason for me to zoom even further ahead until technology and the market have substantially caught up with me and my writing. I focus so much on the future, beyond the next year or two. I need to give the technology and market time to catch up with at least some of my speculation, predictions, forecasts, and requirements.

In short:

A lot of technology progress is needed.
A lot of algorithm development is needed.
Further effort by me will likely fall on deaf ears since I’m already well ahead of the market.

Potential gating factors for resuming from any prolonged break

If I do decide to take a prolonged break from quantum computing — more than a few months — the question arises as to what specific technical criteria to use as the gating criteria for when to resume any significant involvement in quantum computing. Any single factor or combination of factors could trigger my reengagement — not all are required.

There are several broad general categories:

Inflection points. Something dramatic occurs out of the blue and suddenly everything is different. A sea change. A sudden and dramatic acceleration of progress. Some true breakthrough rather than predictable incremental progress. These moments will definitely get my attention, but there won’t be many of them, or at least they won’t be very frequent.
A true game-changer would get my attention. Something that turns the whole sector upside down in some palpably meaningful manner.
Significantly more transparency would get my attention. Vendors are being rather stingy about what they make public. More detailed product roadmaps, great technical disclosure, detailed technical specifications, and much better technical documentation would get my attention.
Specific elapsed time. Nothing technical, just enough time to elapse that something significant is likely to have changed.
Specific technical factors. See the next section.
Specific negative factors. Factors preventing or deterring me from resuming from a beak. See subsequent section.
Notable product releases. Not just hype promises, but actual availability. But that would probably trigger one or more of the specific technical factors listed below.
Peek at major product releases. Even if specific technical factor gating thresholds are not reached, major product releases may at least warrant a brief peek without a full resumption of my involvement in quantum computing. Examples being IBM’s Osprey, Condor, Heron, Flamingo, and Kookaburra.
Until technology and the market have substantially caught up with me and my writing. I focus so much on the future, beyond the next year or two. Give the technology and market time to catch up with at least some of my speculation, predictions, forecasts, and requirements.
A pickup in the pace of advances.
An increase in the degree of each advance. Such as finally a decent increase in qubit fidelity, qubit connectivity, fine granularity of phase and probability amplitude, and maximum circuit size.
Completion of pre-commercialization. When quantum computing is ready to begin commercialization in earnest. Or possibly six months before this milestone is expected. Or maybe even a year.
Commercialization has begun. Not just when pre-commercialization appears to have been completed, but when there are palpable signs that commercialization has actually begun with some sense of seriousness.
Widespread usage of SLAs. Commercialization won’t be a reality until customers are getting commitments for availability and quality via signed, contractual service level agreements (SLAs). No SLAs, no commercialization. Widespread SLAs, widespread commercial adoption.
My retirement. Would nominally end my quantum journey, in theory.

Inflection points will get my intention

A lot of progress is expected in the coming months, years, and decades. A lot of it will be somewhat predictable, but occasionally something will happen, a true breakthrough, a sea change, which wasn’t predicted or expected, and suddenly everything changes, and progress accelerates dramatically. These occasions are inflection points.

Inflection points will definitely get my attention, although maybe only for a short time as I quickly digest the nature of the change which caused a particular inflection point.

But there won’t be many of them, or at least they won’t be very frequent. Still, they are hard to ignore.

Is it an inflection point or just a milestone?

What exactly is the difference between a mere milestone and a meaningful inflection point?

First, the two are independent. You could have a milestone without an inflection point or an inflection point without a milestone.

Generally, a milestone refers to a planned and expected event, typically on a timeline — each milestone is generally assigned a date in advance.

Generally, a sequence of milestones is known and planned in advance, even with expected dates.

Generally, milestones correspond to incremental advances or incremental progress. The increments could be relatively minor or very dramatic and major. It’s still a milestone no matter how minor or major — provided that it has some significance.

Generally, inflection points tend to be unplanned and are typically known only in the rearview mirror or in hindsight. Something happens, and it is only as the consequences of that something unfold in a very dramatic manner that the moment of that something can be seen as a true inflection point.

That said, a milestone could indeed be an inflection point — if the consequences are dramatic enough.

Maybe that’s the clearest distinction:

A milestone could be relatively minor. Although it could be major.
An inflection point must be dramatically consequential. It can never be minor or have minimal consequences.

Sometimes an inflection point becomes considered to be a milestone only in hindsight — if it was an unexpected event, or had been expected to be too minor an event to warrant being considered a milestone in foresight.

There are two interesting exceptional cases:

A major milestone ends up being a dud. It was expected to have dramatic consequences, but it just didn’t turn out that way.
A relatively minor milestone ends up being a huge success. It just happens that way, sometimes. What seemed minor in foresight ended up being very consequential in hindsight.

From the perspective of this paper, my attention will tend to be drawn only by:

Milestones which turn into inflection points. Incremental progress is of little interest to me.
Non-milestone events which turn into inflection points. All that matters is that it turned out as an inflection point, not how it started.
Milestones which are expected to be inflection points. Either I or the sector in general has very high expectations. My interest and role will not be as a cheerleader, but to calmly and rationally analyze the results of the milestone to assess whether it is indeed showing promise of becoming an inflection point.

To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with relatively minor milestones or incremental progress — that’s an absolutely essential quality of any major project. It’s just that at this stage my interest is in the big leaps, not the slow slog. There’s no shortage of people and firms competent and very able to add value for minor milestones and incremental progress. My efforts are not needed and would add little value on that front.

Ultimately, I’d like to focus on assessing events that are on the verge of becoming inflection points but not yet recognized as such rather than wait until after the fact when everybody knows about it. My focus needs to be on adding value.

That said, there will likely be times when even I fail to properly assess the prospects of an event, either missing an emerging inflection point or being overly optimistic and wrong about what I imagined was going to be an inflection point.

Negative inflection points

One other thing about inflection points: They’re not always positive events. They’re generally positive events, but they could be negative as well.

Some potential negative inflection points:

Onset of a Quantum Winter.
Recession. Hits everybody.
Financial crisis. Hits everybody.
Public health crisis. Such as a pandemic.
Weather crisis. Storms, droughts, floods.
Natural disasters. Earthquakes, volcanos.
Market saturation. It eventually happens.
Investment bubble. The technology may be great, but there may be too many firms chasing a fixed amount of opportunities.
Technology wall. Hitting some limit of the technology. May or may not have been foreseen.
War. Armed conflict disrupting daily and business life.
Talent shortage. Not enough skilled or trainable people to fill required positions.

A true game-changer would get my attention

A game-changer is something, some event or some technological breakthrough, that turns the whole sector upside down in some palpably meaningful manner. That would get my attention and cause me to get more engaged with the quantum computing sector.

Milestones can be impressive, but would rarely be game-changers.

Breakthroughs have the potential to be game-changers, but not all breakthroughs would necessarily change the game in a truly dramatic manner.

The only true definition of a game-changer is that you’ll know one when you see it.

Even in the face of a game-changing event, I might re-engage only briefly before pausing again. This might happen if I had already anticipated such a game-changer, so there might not be much more for me to do other than to acknowledge it and point to any of my previous writings on that game-changing topic.

But occasionally I expect that there will be game-changing events that even I failed to anticipate. Whether and to the extent that I re-engage will depend on the specific details of the game-changing event.

Significantly more transparency would get my attention

Vendors are being rather stingy about what they make public. They excel at flowery rhetoric and wild or vague promises. Technical disclosure not so much.

Some of the things that would get my attention would be:

More detailed product roadmaps.
Greater technical disclosure.
Detailed technical specifications.
Much better technical documentation.

Potential specific technical gating factors for resuming from any prolonged break

Any number of potential specific technical gating factors could pique my curiosity and get me back from any break and back into the game with more vigor. Any single factor or combination of factors could trigger my reengagement — not all are required. Some of the factors are:

Qubit fidelity. Minimum of three nines, commonly available. Maybe 3.25, 3.50, or even 3.75 nines. Maybe even four nines of qubit fidelity.
Near-perfect qubits. Enough that the floodgates open and many algorithms are generally no longer limited by qubit fidelity.
Better qubit connectivity. Preferably full any to any connectivity such as using a quantum state bus. Anything is better than SWAP networks.
Maximum circuit size. Maybe 100, 250, 500, 1K, or even 2K gates. 1,000 gates would be a significant breakthrough, although 2,000 or even 2,5000 gates might be the breakthrough that would really be needed to capture my attention since this is what would be needed to implement a 20-qubit quantum Fourier transform or quantum phase estimation to produce a million to one significant quantum advantage over classical solutions. This would also imply a significant breakthrough in coherence time and gate execution time.
Quantum Volume (QV). Maybe 4K, 8K, or even 16K. Or maybe just 2K.
Advent of a new benchmarking metric to replace Quantum Volume (QV). Since Quantum Volume won’t work for around 50 or more qubits. And it may be problematic even at 40 or 36 or 32 or even 28 qubits since it requires a full classical simulation of a complex quantum circuit.
Vendors paying attention to the granularity of phase and probability amplitude. Commitment to supporting finer granularity.
Larger algorithms. 40-qubit algorithms would definitely get my attention. And possibly 32-qubit algorithms. Even 24-qubit algorithms should be enough to get my attention. Maybe 28 qubits. Or maybe just 20-qubit algorithms becoming common, which is not the case today.
Anything substantially more than toy algorithms. Any algorithm using 5 or 7 or even 11 qubits is a mere toy. Even 15 qubits is a toy algorithm. Substance starts at 16 bits, and maybe even 20 qubits or 24 qubits should mark the starting point for an algorithm worth paying attention to.
Common use of quantum Fourier transform (QFT). At least 10 bits. Maybe 12 or even 14 bits. 16 to 20 bits eventually. Enough that developers of quantum application categories such as quantum computational chemistry are weaned away from the dead-end of variational methods. Note that a quantum Fourier transform for n bits requires two times n qubits — to accommodate two registers, one for input, one for output.
Quantum phase estimation (QPE) for a real-world application. Especially for quantum computational chemistry.
My proposed 48 fully-connected near-perfect qubits quantum computer. Enough for a 20-bit quantum Fourier transform, and to achieve a significant quantum advantage of one million over a classical solution.
Somebody begins using my proposed label for capabilities and requirements of quantum computers and quantum algorithms. Even one vendor, but preferably several vendors. And I want to see it used for algorithm requirements as well.
Somebody finally produces a decent Hello World example for quantum computing. Both a quantum algorithm and quantum application which uses it. Must demonstrate some interesting and impressive level of quantum advantage and demonstrate quantum parallelism.
Intel finally produces a fully-functional quantum computer. Or enough components to enable other vendors to build their own quantum computers using Intel components.
The ENIAC Moment. The first significant production-scale practical real-world quantum application. Or maybe wait for the second or third one to prove that the initial success really can be replicated.
Completion of pre-commercialization. When quantum computing is ready to begin commercialization in earnest. Or possibly six months before this milestone is expected. Or maybe even a year.
Commercialization has begun. Not just when pre-commercialization appears to have been completed, but when there are palpable signs that commercialization has actually begun with some sense of seriousness.
Configurable packaged quantum solutions are available to enable widespread adoption of quantum computing. The first time, or first few times, a configurable application can be successfully deployed — with the configuration developed by a developer who is not an elite quantum expert.
Somebody finally produces a practical quantum computer. Will need one or more production-scale practical real-world applications to prove it. Or at least a significant fraction of that level of performance and capacity, something that persuasively convinces people that practical quantum computing really is just around the corner, within months or a year max, not multiple years. Two years might be a bearable threshold, but no longer than that.
The advent of the NPISQ era. Finally move past noisy qubits. Or even the advent of the NPSSQ era — still under 50 qubits, but no longer so noisy. Requires near-perfect qubits (NP). When people generally acknowledge that the NISQ era is over and that near-perfect qubits are expected to be the norm.
End of the NISQ era. Noisy qubits are no longer acceptable. Comes with the advent of the NPISQ or NISSQ era.
Emergence of an Association for Quantum Computing Machinery. That might present some interesting opportunities for accelerating advances in the quantum computing sector.
Demonstrate Shor’s algorithm for 6 to 8 or even 10 to 12-bit numbers on a real quantum computer. And on a simulator as well. This would show that the technology of quantum computers is actually starting to get serious.
Quantum error correction (QEC) and perfect logical qubits. That could be a long wait, but it will enable many more quantum applications. Will also need a qubit count threshold, such as 24 logical qubits, 28, 32, 36, 40, or even 48 logical qubits — a handful of logical qubits, even under 16 may not be worthy of my attention since that wouldn’t enable production-scale quantum algorithms.
The FORTRAN Moment with a high-level programming model. And probably quantum error correction and perfect logical qubits as well. This should really open the floodgates for widespread quantum algorithm and quantum application development. But this would be quite a long wait, years after even The ENIAC Moment.
Emergence from a Quantum Winter. A Quantum WInter is unlikely in the next couple of years, but… never say never. Maybe in a few years it could be possible if too many vendors fail to keep too many promises. And then maybe it takes a few years for the technology to finally catch up with the promises.
Inflection points will get my attention. Something dramatic occurs out of the blue and suddenly everything is different. A sea change. A sudden and dramatic acceleration of progress. Some true breakthrough rather than predictable incremental progress. These moments will definitely get my attention, but there won’t be many of them, or at least they won’t be very frequent. The technical nature of an inflection point will be very specific, just generally not predictable in advance. Or it may be predictable from a technical perspective, just not its timing.
Significant advances in quantum networking. Not quantum communication, which is transmitting classical data using quantum technology, but sharing (entangling) of full quantum state between qubits on one quantum computer with qubits on one or more other quantum computers separated by some non-trivial distance. The goal is distributed quantum computing — where a single quantum computation can be spread over two or more distinct quantum computers. Still an early research effort, but eventually it will get exciting.

Potential specific negative gating factors preventing or deterring me from resuming from any prolonged break

Even if there are some positive gating factors appealing to my attention, negative factors could cause me to hold off. Some of the potential specific negative factors which could prevent or deter me from getting me back in the quantum game with vigor:

Rampant hype.
Increasing hype.
Increasing indifference to hype.
Wilder promises.
Wilder claims.
Misleading claims of commercial products. Declaring products and services to be commercial before they are truly ready for production deployment of production-scale practical real-world quantum applications. Implying that products and services are production-ready when they are only suitable for prototyping and experimentation with toy data.
Premature commercialization. Pursuing commercial offerings with technology that is simply not ready for production deployment of production-scale practical real-world quantum applications. Or simply pursuing commercialization while the sector is deep in the pre-commercialization stage with much research remaining to be done.
Excessive silliness and non-seriousness. People having too much fun and being too cavalier about slow progress. Fun is good but needs to be aligned with and dependent on a large amount of major progress. Fun without dramatic progress is a non-starter for me.
Excessive proprietary intellectual property. Patents can be a good thing, but not if they are misused to block entry of new technology and competition, or to make entry prohibitively expensive, especially for startups or researchers.
Onset of a Quantum Winter. A very bad thing. But, there may be fresh opportunities even when activity, especially unproductive frenzy, is diminished.
Insufficient transparency for new announcements. Hype for new products and services without sufficient disclosure of technical details.
Insufficient progress on qubit fidelity.
Insufficient progress on qubit connectivity.
Insufficient progress on finer granularity of phase and probability amplitude.
Insufficient progress on quantum advantage. Remains more hype than reality.
Still not seeing much in the way of algorithms using 20–24 qubits. We really need to see 28, 32, 36, 40, and 44-qubit algorithms, but if we can’t even muster much in the way of 20 to 24-qubit algorithms, we’re not ready to be taken seriously.
Seeing a slowdown in interesting research results.
Not seeing a pickup in interesting research results.
Nobody is even talking about SLAs. Commercialization won’t be a reality until customers are getting commitments for availability and quality via signed, contractual service level agreements (SLAs). No SLAs, no commercialization. Widespread SLAs, widespread commercial adoption.
Quantum computing is still a mere laboratory curiosity. Not yet ready for production deployment to address production-scale practical real-world problems. Everything people are doing just seems so… toy-like.
Even relatively simple quantum algorithms and quantum applications require the superhuman effort of the lunatic fringe. Even relatively simple quantum computing is far beyond the abilities of mere mortal, average, normal, typical corporate technical staff. Unfortunately, this might not change until The FORTRAN Moment with a truly high-level programming model, although the availability of configurable packaged quantum solutions will permit widespread adoption of quantum solutions even if custom quantum algorithms are still beyond all but the lunatic fringe.
Too many algorithms just for the sake of algorithms, without practical applications. We definitely need more quantum algorithms, but they need to be focused on solving customer problems, not developed just because we can or to prove some esoteric computer science point.
Ongoing hype about Shor’s factoring algorithm. Starting with the notion that it has already proved itself even though it has not been implemented at any significant scale. Shor’s factoring algorithm could never be practical at scale — due to the lack of sufficiently fine granularity of phase for very large quantum Fourier transforms. As a paper algorithm, it has not proven anything. Academic papers should cease citing Shor’s factoring algorithm as if it had proven anything.
Ongoing hype about Grover’s search algorithm. Starting with the notion that it can search databases or even unstructured databases, despite the fact that databases are by definition structured and tend to be indexed so that no searching (ala Grover) is required. Academic papers should cease citing Grover’s search algorithm.
Ongoing hype about post-quantum cryptography (PQC). Starting with the notion that Shor’s factoring algorithm could ever be practical at scale — due to the lack of sufficiently fine granularity of phase for very large quantum Fourier transforms. Besides, post means after, so the hype is about cryptography during quantum computing, not after quantum computing. Nobody has any clue as to what form of computing might come after quantum computing. I’ve identified some serious issues with Shor’s factoring algorithm that mean that it will never be able to be implemented at scale. Apparently the experts at NIST and elsewhere don’t have the competence to see these same deficiencies. If these experts can’t understand the supposed threat, how can they be trusted to review, comprehend, prove, and approve a new encryption standard that addresses that presumed threat? Put simply, they can’t and shouldn’t be trusted.

Quantum computing is still a mere laboratory curiosity

Quantum computers are not ready for production-scale practical real-world quantum applications or production deployment and won’t be for the foreseeable future. Sure, they do exist today, but more for research, prototyping, experimentation, and demonstration than practical use. This makes them mere laboratory curiosities — we can look at them and imagine their future potential, but that potential does not yet exist for production-scale practical real-world quantum applications.

For more on quantum computing being a mere laboratory curiosity, see my paper:

So when will quantum computing advance beyond mere laboratory curiosity? That’s one of the great unknown questions at this stage. It could be a few years. It could be five to seven years. Maybe ten years. Or more. Nobody knows. And I mean nobody!

Quantum computing remains more suited for the lunatic fringe who will use anything than for normal, average technical staff

Eventually quantum computing will enter the mainstream of computing, but for now and the foreseeable future it will be suitable only for the lunatic fringe, those elite experts and early adopters who are able to master and exploit the most obscure and difficult to use technology that is far from ready for use by normal, average technical staff — and far from ready for production deployment.

It’s still the wild west out there. It can be great and exciting, for some, but not for most.

For more on the lunatic fringe, see my paper:

My proposal for a quantum computer with 48 fully-connected near-perfect qubits as a strong contender for the primary technical gating factor

If I might be considering a one to two year break anyway, my proposal for a quantum computer with 48 fully-connected near-perfect qubits might be the ideal candidate for the primary technical gating factor before I resume my quantum journey in earnest.

Having enough quantum horsepower to perform a 20-bit quantum Fourier transform, and to achieve a significant quantum advantage of one million over a classical solution, could well be the key, essential turning point for the quantum computing sector.

The exact number of qubits is not the important factor — it could be 50, 64, 72, 80, 96, 100, 128, or even 256 qubits, but less than 48 qubits probably won’t be sufficient to achieve any dramatic and truly noteworthy results.

For more detail on my proposal, see my paper:

Somebody begins using my proposed label for capabilities and requirements of quantum computers and quantum algorithms

This speaks to transparency and the need for greater technical disclosure. My ears would perk up if one or more vendors began using my proposed label for quantum capabilities for quantum computers as well as requirements for quantum algorithms and applications.

I’d be happy if even one vendor began using my proposed label for the capabilities of quantum computers, but preferably several vendors.

And I want to see it used for algorithm and application requirements as well.

For details of my proposed label, see my paper:

How long might it be before I am likely to resume my quantum journey in earnest?

Here are the most likely scenarios for the timing of resumption of my quantum journey in earnest:

Immediately. Just a blink of the eye. I may be raising this as a question, but it may be a foregone conclusion — and I just don’t realize it until it actually happens.
A few weeks, a month. A rather short break just to reflect a little, adjust a little, and then full steam ahead.
Two to three months. A reasonable break. A clear break. But then full steam ahead, as if nothing had happened.
Three to six months. A fairly decent break. Plenty of time to figure a lot of things out. And plenty of time for technology and the market to advance in a palpable or even noteworthy manner.
Six to nine months. Risk of getting distracted by and sucked into other things — such as AI.
A year. Now that would be a real break.
Eighteen months. I’d probably be off working on other projects by then.
Two years. Likely waiting for some dramatic progress on the quantum front.
Two to three years. By then it should be clear whether quantum is on the verge of either a practical quantum computer or… a Quantum Winter.
Beyond that, maybe never. If I haven’t resumed my quantum journey in three or four years, it’s likely that I won’t be resuming it, ever. But… never say never!

Those longer horizons may depend critically on how my thinking about retirement evolves.

How long can I break before knowledge begins to become stale and I fall behind on the advancing state of the art?

I’m open to how long a break I might take, but a constraining factor is that knowledge is advancing rapidly in quantum computing, so the longer I break, the faster I will begin to fall behind the rapidly-advancing state of the art of quantum computing.

A few months is probably not a big deal.

Or even six months.

After a year, I might have to invest significant effort to figure out what I might have missed.

After two years, it might be quite a struggle to catch up.

More than two years, and I might as well start over and learn about quantum computing from scratch. But maybe that might be a good thing because a lot of my old knowledge might be rather stale and no longer relevant anyway.

I’ve made no final decision yet — just contemplating options

I haven’t even formally decided against continuing my quantum journey just as it was. I have a sense that some change would be helpful — and desirable, but that alone won’t force a decision one way or another.

Inclined to just play it month to month and expect that within three to six months I’ll achieve some clarity

Rather than make an immediate decision or even set a deadline for making a decision, it almost just feels right to me to just play my quantum journey on a month to month basis and see how it evolves — to evolve towards a revised quantum journey rather than make an artificial, and artificially-firm plan.

I could cut my work-like activity significantly or somewhat, but still remain somewhat active

Activity doesn’t need to be an all or nothing choice. I could cut my work-like activity significantly or just somewhat, but still remain at least somewhat active.

By work-like activity I include any activity related to:

Employment.
Consulting.
Technical writing.
Reading of technical papers.
Reading of technical media.
Reading of technical books.
Volunteer.
Mentor.
Advisor.

That’s activities which are actual work or comparable to the activities of actual work.

Some options for cutting my work-like activity:

Cut in half.
Cut by a quarter.
Cut by three quarters.
Cut even by 90%.

I have the freedom to be flexible in this regard.

Mix and match options

I don’t have to choose a single, definitive option for the next stage of my quantum journey — I can mix and match different aspects of different options.

And I can evolve the mixing over time as the technology, market, and my interests evolve.

The best-laid plans of mice and men — ask me again in a month!

Okay, so this informal paper is my best shot at laying out my options for the next stage of my quantum journey. But with as much diligence and attention as I’ve put into it, I do have to acknowledge that even before the (figurative) ink has dried, I may decide that some other option is more practical or more desirable.

As some old warrior once said, even the best plans won’t survive first contact with the enemy.

Give me a month. A full month. And then we can see how much, if any, of the plans or options of this paper turn out to be viable and practical.

What might I do if or when my quantum journey ends?

I already have four other, unrelated areas that get at least some of my attention, one technical, and three nontechnical:

Artificial intelligence. As in AGI — artificial general intelligence. Not so-called machine learning or even so-called deep learning, which I don’t even consider AI proper. Digging deeper to understand all aspects of human intelligence or human-level intelligence, especially higher-order human-level intelligence is a significant interest. Understanding animal intelligence is a priority as well since much of so-called human intelligence is shared with animals — just not the higher-order intelligence. Or even just laying out a better map of what constitutes intelligence overall. Eventually quantum effects may come into play, but we’re not even close to that yet.
Mental health. A huge social issue with no adequate solutions. Many social problems spring from untreated or inadequately-treated mental health problems.
International relations. The geopolitical domain. Conflict between nations. For example, I was following Ukraine closely for five years before the onset of recent events.
Values and social divides. Another huge social issue.

And I have plenty of other interests.

When exactly will the current stage of my quantum journey end and the next stage begin?

I’m not really sure. Maybe the de facto answer is that my quantum journey will transition to its next stage the moment this paper gets posted.

Actually, the transition will occur exactly when I actually make a change, any change.

Or maybe when I make a critical mass of changes, when it becomes clear that I’m working in a new and different mode than I was before I started this paper.

In any case, the overall, rough answer is that the transition will happen roughly this fall. I’ll end the summer finishing up the current stage of my quantum journey, and by Thanksgiving or Christmas or New Years I should have embarked on the next stage — or taking a break between the two stages.

How long might this next stage of my quantum journey last?

The bottom line is that it is currently indeterminate how long a new stage of my quantum journey might last.

It will likely be gated by technology and market developments — and my own interests. Particularly if the next stage is simply to take a break, waiting for the technology and market to catch up, if I feel like doing that.

Although it might end up being relatively fixed at two years since that seems like a reasonable planning window.

Ultimately, it will end as soon as I feel like ending it, whenever it simply feels like a new stage is imminent or desirable.

Quantum computing advances we need to see over the coming 12 to 18 to 24 months to stay on track

Back in February (2022) I wrote this informal paper on my expectations for advances that we needed to see in quantum computing over the next one to two years to stay on track for expectations that seemed to have been set for the sector.

I can’t say that we’ve made any great progress on that list, but it’s been only six months since I wrote it.

In any case, that’s a clear presentation of how many things really need to fall into place to achieve a viable practical quantum computer.

Items on that list are clearly potential gating factors for when I might get more energized about the short-term potential for quantum computing and feel more compelled to jump back into the fray with dramatically renewed vigor.

For details, read the paper here:

What single advance in quantum computing is most needed in the near future? Higher qubit fidelity

The preceding section referred to the many advances needed to achieve a practical quantum computer. This section focuses on the single most important technical advance — higher qubit fidelity.

Better qubit connectivity is a close second — and very essential, but without much higher qubit fidelity very little is practical.

Higher qubit fidelity is clearly a top potential gating factor for when I could get more energized about the short-term potential for quantum computing and feel more compelled to jump back into the fray with dramatically renewed vigor.

For a more detailed discussion, see my paper:

Ongoing hype about Shor’s factoring algorithm

One ongoing difficulty in quantum computing is the excess of hype about Shor’s factoring algorithm. Starting with the notion that it has already proved itself even though it has not been implemented at any significant scale.

Shor’s factoring algorithm could never be practical at scale — due to the lack of sufficiently fine granularity of phase for very large quantum Fourier transforms.

As a paper algorithm, it has not proven anything. Academic papers should cease citing Shor’s factoring algorithm as if it had proven anything.

For details on the technical issues impacting Shor’s factoring algorithm, see my paper:

Is quantum computing really viable? Still unclear

The central question in front of me and all around me since I began my quantum journey was and still is the question of whether quantum computing really is viable. In short, the jury is still out.

Sure, we actually do have real, working quantum computers, but… for the most part they can’t support much more than toy algorithms and toy applications. Worse, we haven’t been making any great progress over the last two years on the algorithm and application front. Yes, we’ve made progress, of sorts, on all fronts, to at least some degree, but the fact remains that all we have to show for it are toy algorithms and toy applications.

We have no 40-qubit algorithms for practical real-world applications, or even 32 or 28 or 24-qubit algorithms.

To me, the really big milestone we need to achieve is 48-qubit algorithms, or at least something around 40 to 42-qubits. And we’re not even close.

When will that change? That’s the really big question! I don’t expect a change in a few months or even a year or eighteen months. And likely not even in two years.

There are plenty of unanswered questions and technology challenges before quantum computing can become viable — or even have a clear path to viability. What’s needed most is much more research. We’re in desperate need of research funding, not venture capital investment, at this stage.

How much confidence do I have in the technical feasibility of quantum computing? Some, but…

As in the previous section, there are so many unanswered questions when it comes to the technical feasibility of many of the more esoteric aspects of quantum computing.

Sure, there are quite a few technical issues for quantum computing which have been quite adequately addressed, as evidenced by the variety of real quantum computers which exist today, but that says nothing about any of the remaining issues.

I really do have a fair amount of confidence in eventually addressing quite a few of the open issues, but there are areas in which I simply have no confidence.

And there are areas where I don’t even have confidence that I know what the issues actually are. Nor do I have any great confidence that a lot of the so-called experts even know what all of the critical issues are. It’s all just a… work in progress.

Fine granularity of phase and probability amplitude is a major area of uncertainty and lack of confidence for me. I have two papers diving into this area:

And my later paper refining that concern:

There are other areas of concern as well, but without a credible resolution to this one, not much really matters in quantum computing.

An area that intersects with this issue is quantum error correction (QEC). I’m concerned that quantum error correction actually isn’t equipped to deal with subtle errors in phase and probability amplitude. I’ve seen nothing that addresses this aspect of error correction.

All of that said, I do indeed have a lot of confidence in a lot of the basics of quantum computing. It’s in these more esoteric areas that my confidence wanes.

My quantum journey is not predicated on proof of viability for quantum computing

Regardless of how much longer it might take to achieve viability for quantum computing, or even simply answering the question about whether it really is viable, the appeal of my quantum journey still exists for me. It’s a hard problem, and I enjoy hard problems.

Retirement

I am rapidly approaching the end of my nominal career. I’m already past normal Social Security retirement age and less than two years from maximal Social Security benefits.

Although taking a normal job is effectively now out of the question for me, no longer pursuing consulting opportunities is more of a choice on my part.

That said, there’s nothing stopping me from pursuing an interest in quantum computing during my retirement.

I see retirement as six stages:

Pre-retirement. The years leading up to retirement. Work or work-like activity is still strong.
Early retirement. For those who are financially able and wish to. Bailing on any actual work, although work-like activity is still possible, more likely as volunteer work.
Semi-retired. A hybrid. Open to work, may work some of the time, but significant intervals of time without formal work is acceptable. Fill any gaps with work-like activity. This is where I personally am right now.
New retirement. First few years of retirement. Some modest level of work or work-like activity is reasonably possible. Focus on moving away from work and work-like activity. Supposed to be enjoying life after all of that hard work, but it can be a challenging transition for many.
Mid-retirement. More than a few years after retirement. Work or work-like activity is the exception rather than the norm. Some advisory work may still make sense, but no major commitments. Time to really enjoy life.
Late-retirement. Sunset years, golden years, or whatever you want to call them. Time to enjoy life — your last chance. No reasonable expectation of work or work-like activity.

Currently I am semi-retired, and that’s fine with me

I’m semi-retired now, since 2015, and that’s fine with me.

I’m semi-retired in the sense that I could take work if it appealed to me, but lacking any appealing work, I’m content to keep myself busy with work-like activity, primarily my reading, research, and writing.

Expecting to officially retire in April/May 2024

I will hit the maximum Social Security benefit in April/May 2024. That will mark my official retirement.

At that stage I will absolutely be off the job market, even for any significant consulting work.

I’ll still be open to some work-like activity in the first few years of my official retirement, but I’m also open to skipping that or only occasionally or sporadically engaging in work-like activity.

Retirement doesn’t mean I can’t pursue technical and work-like projects, just that I have no obligation or commitment and don’t in any way feel compelled to pursue such projects

I don’t expect that my eventual retirement will simply be focused on golf and tennis, reading, travel, and visiting with friends. Sure, my retirement may include some or all of that. The important thing is that work and work-like activity won’t be permitted to have any sort of negative impact on my lifestyle or peace of mind.

Sure, I could do a little work or other work-like activity — if I feel like it, but the really important criteria are:

No obligation to work or pursue work.
No work commitments.
No obligation to engage in work-like activities.
No commitments for work-like activities.
No feeling of being compelled to work or pursue work-like activities.

Updating my future writing topics

As I’ve already indicated, I have completed most if not all of my most urgent writing priorities.

As such, I am updating my list of writing topics to:

Empty out my list of current writing interests.
Empty out my list of Top 25 writing priorities.
Empty out my list of 75 runners up for writing priority.

Otherwise my list of topics remains as it was. There are well over 1,000 topics on my list!

I will incrementally re-add topics to those three lists as my interest and priority for them becomes clear in the next stage of my quantum journey. Or not.

I do expect to continue adding topics to the list as I encounter them.

And anyone else is free to write about any of these topics as well.

My list of future writing topics is here:

Is my quantum journey actually now at its end?

It could very well be that my quantum journey actually is at its end. It might be. I don’t think so, but it’s very possible.

After all, I have completed so many of my most urgent writing interests.

And progress for technology and the market is moving at too slow a pace to truly hold my interest and attention, although that could just argue for a temporary break rather than a hard stop.

In many ways I’ve been living the future of quantum computing in my head for the past five years, so now it may make sense to simply sit back and watch reality unfold over the next two to five to ten to twenty years and compare it to the visions I’ve held in my head over the past five years.

Let’s see in a few months. I may well change my mind. Or some interesting developments may occur which change my mind for me.

Have I exhausted my efforts at understanding the capabilities, limitations, and issues of quantum computing? No, but a pause could give me some fresh perspective

I think I have exhausted my immediate and most pressing inquiries into the capabilities, limitations, and issues of quantum computing, but that’s just my higher priority interests.

There are plenty of additional areas and aspects of quantum computing that are worthy of my attention.

A brief or even longer pause at this juncture could allow me to rest, regroup, and give me some fresh perspective on how to look at quantum computing.

For more on my overall interest in quantum computing — its capabilities, limitations, and issues, see my paper from just over two years ago (June 2020):

Plenty of runway ahead for quantum computing and my interests in understanding its capabilities, limitations, and issues

Although quantum computing has made some amazing advances over the past five years, there are plenty of opportunities for continued advances. Or plenty of runway as some might say.

Ditto for my own interests in discovering and analyzing the capabilities, limitations, and issues of quantum computing, now and as it evolves in the years and decades to come. There’s plenty of runway ahead of me on that front.

How much of that I pursue, when, and at what pace, and at what depth remains to be seen.

For more on my overall interest in quantum computing — its capabilities, limitations, and issues, see my paper from just over two years ago (June 2020):

Too soon for my quantum swan song

Who knows, maybe in the coming months (or years) I may well decide that my quantum journey is at an end. At that point I will be ready to write my quantum swan song. But, it just doesn’t feel like that is going to happen any time soon. Still, you never know — never say never!

When and where and how will I let people know what I decided as far as the next stage of my quantum journey?

I just don’t know whether I’ll have an explicit post for what I finally decide for the next stage of my quantum journey. Maybe, for some scenarios, but maybe not for others.

If I decide to continue as before, then there’s nothing to say.

If I don’t post every two weeks, there’s no good reason for me to post that I’m not posting every two weeks.

If I simply shift to a different posting interval, like monthly, I will likely note that in my post on LinkedIn. Like, using the language such as “My monthly post…”

If the content and subject of my research, reading, or writing changes, that would likely show up in whatever posts I make.

If I explicitly decide to take a break for some non-trivial interval, like three months or longer, I will likely post that decision.

If I explicitly decide to extend my break or end my break due to specific technology or market advances or conditions, I would probably write about the details, whatever is notable and noteworthy.

My default will be a short post on LinkedIn to state my intentions if or when the path or pace of my quantum journey changes in any nontrivial manner that feels worthy of notice.

Unlikely that I will be very active in quantum computing in five years

Five years is a long time. Although I hardly thought that I would be at this juncture when I started my quantum journey almost five years ago. Still, I can’t quite imagine that I will still be very active in quantum computing in five years.

Assuming that I officially retire from work and work-like activity in two years, five years would be three years into my retirement. I can’t imagine still being very active in quantum computing at that stage.

But never say never.

If nothing else, my preference is to be heavily involved in the early stages of a new technology, and then moving on once the technology has matured and made it into the mainstream.

I certainly do hope — and expect — that quantum computing will be in the mainstream of computing five years from now.

Risk of a Quantum Winter

A Quantum WInter is unlikely in the next couple of years, but… never say never.

Maybe in a few years it could be possible if too many vendors fail to keep too many promises.

But even then it may just be temporary as it takes a few years for the technology to finally catch up with the promises.

For more on the risks of a Quantum Winter, see my paper:

Alternative titles for this informal paper

I struggled to decide what to call this paper:

Preparing for the next stage of my quantum journey.
Contemplating the next stage of my quantum journey.
Considering the next stage of my quantum journey.
Reflections on my quantum journey.
Pausing my quantum journey.
Course correction for my quantum journey.
Shifting gears for my quantum journey.

A key issue was whether this paper should be based on a presumption of change or simply considering change. I ultimately decided that I at least needed to consider a change, but I didn’t want to prejudge what the change might be.

I decided to focus on options and gating factors, with any final decision beyond the scope of this paper itself. But I did indeed decide that some change was very likely, even if the paper itself wouldn’t arrive at the ultimate change.

Never say never = 1 in 1,000 chance

Even when I make a fairly definitive statement, I tend to offer the caveat of my philosophy of never say never. What I mean by never say never is that there may be very little chance, but there is at least some chance. How much of a chance? I use the model of never say never meaning no more than a 1 in 1,000 chance. Significantly less than a 1% chance.

My original proposal for this topic

For reference, here is the original proposal I had for this topic. It may have some value for some people wanting a more concise summary of this paper.

Preparing for the next stage of my quantum journey. Coming up on five years — from November 2017. But also need to consider upcoming retirement in 21 months (April 2024.)

Summary and conclusions

I consider my past two years as having been quite fruitful in quantum computing. Both the work — writing — that I’ve done, and keeping up with developments and advances in the technology and the market.
Seriously, I’ve done enough writing already and feel that I’ve said all of the really important things I wanted to say.
It feels like it’s time for me to pause, step back, and reflect to get some perspective before continuing.
Any regrets? No, not really. I learned a lot and got a lot of satisfaction from my efforts over the past two and even five years. I honestly can say that I don’t know what I might have done any differently that might have left me at a better place than I am right now.
I have no clear objective at this stage. I’ve already accomplished much of what I set out to do.
Just wait for technology and the market to catch up with what I’ve been writing about. I’ve spent so much time living in the future of quantum computing. Time for some of that future to become the present.
But there are still very many unknowns and question marks about quantum computing for me to say that my quantum journey is fully complete. My speculation about the future of quantum computing is far from comprehensive or necessarily accurate.
Quantum computing has made a lot of progress in recent years. Especially since 2016.
But still a long way to go to get to a practical quantum computer and any dramatic quantum advantage.
We’re such a long way from a practical quantum computer with any significant quantum advantage which delivers compelling business value, so why bother paying much attention until we get a lot closer? It’s a balancing act. You don’t want to be too late, but being too early can be expensive, tiring, exhausting, and unproductive. There’s risk either way.
Almost five years from my first attempt to dive into quantum computing. November 2017.
Have some sense of how the next two years could go for quantum computing, but it could go a lot of different ways.
Not so sure what my own quantum journey will actually look like over the next two years.
I’ve identified quite a few options for how my quantum journey might evolve.
I’ve identified a few preferred options.
I may consider taking a break before I continue in earnest. Flexible as to how long, from a couple of months to a couple of years.
I’ve identified factors that could influence whether or when I resume activity after a break. Some technical, some non-technical.
I’ve identified a long list of technical factors and milestones that could influence whether or when I resume activity after a break.
Inflection points will get my attention. Something dramatic occurs out of the blue and suddenly everything is different. A sea change. A sudden and dramatic acceleration of progress. Some true breakthrough rather than predictable incremental progress. These moments will definitely get my attention, but there won’t be many of them, or at least they won’t be very frequent.
A true game-changer would get my attention. Something that turns the whole sector upside down in some palpably meaningful manner.
Significantly more transparency would get my attention. Vendors are being rather stingy about what they make public. More detailed product roadmaps, greater technical disclosure, detailed technical specifications, and much better technical documentation would get my attention.
Some negative factors could cause me to prolong a break.
I may wait until quantum computing is no longer a mere laboratory curiosity. Not yet ready for production deployment to address production-scale practical real-world problems. Everything people are doing just seems so… toy-like.
I may wait for The ENIAC Moment. The first significant production-scale practical real-world quantum application. Or maybe wait for the second or third one to prove that the initial success really can be replicated.
I may wait until it is no longer true that even relatively simple quantum algorithms and quantum applications require the superhuman effort of the lunatic fringe. Even relatively simple quantum computing is far beyond the abilities of mere mortal, average, normal, typical corporate technical staff. Unfortunately, this might not change until The FORTRAN Moment with a truly high-level programming model, although the availability of configurable packaged quantum solutions will permit widespread adoption of quantum solutions even if custom quantum algorithms are still beyond all but the lunatic fringe.
I may wait until I see my proposed 48 fully-connected near-perfect qubits quantum computer. Enough for a 20-bit quantum Fourier transform, and to achieve a significant quantum advantage of one million over a classical solution.
I may wait until somebody begins using my proposed label for capabilities and requirements of quantum computers and quantum algorithms. Even one vendor, but preferably several vendors. And I want to see it used for algorithm requirements as well.
I’ve identified plenty of low-intensity quantum-related activities I could likely continue even if I took a break.
I’ve decided to defer deciding which option(s) to take until after this paper is posted.
I may just try a few things over the coming months and see what seems to work best for me.
Reruns of my past papers are an appealing option. Repost on LinkedIn for papers I’ve written in the past, with specific, narrow, and timely comments related to what’s going on in the quantum computing sector at the moment. Highlight the relevance of my past writing.
Regular or occasional public service announcements might be helpful. Periodic or occasional reruns of some of my past papers for issues that simply aren’t getting enough attention.
One promising scenario — reruns and PSAs while I wait for some technical criteria to be achieved. Might be the easiest, most productive, and most effective use of my time, energy, and attention. Technical criteria might include near-perfect qubits, either full connectivity for transmon qubits or 32 to 40 qubits for trapped ion or neutral atom qubits, reasonably fine granularity of phase and probability amplitude, and 24 to 28-qubit or even 40-qubit algorithms. And also wait for quantum Fourier transform (QFT) and quantum phase estimation (QPE) for 12 to 20 qubits, when quantum Fourier transform and quantum phase estimation have become common in new quantum algorithms, and when quantum computational chemistry switches from variational methods to quantum phase estimation. And wait for Quantum Volume (QV) of 16 million to 256 million, which enables high-quality algorithms using 24 to 28 qubits.
Continue adding new topics to my list of future topics for my writing. Just not regularly writing about them. But others can write about them. What might change is that I may consider doing LinkedIn posts for some of the more interesting topics that I add to my list — just the topic title and my brief notes, but no full-length discourse. At a minimum, my writing topics, and their annotations, even if I decide not to write about them, are good food for thought that readers and connections might find helpful.
Consider a switch to a focus on the underlying physics. Gain a better insight to what makes qubits really tick. Or spin.
Consider a switch to a focus on photonics. I know so little about photonics. I’d like to evaluate whether a general-purpose photonic quantum computer is even theoretically possible. I can’t even answer the question of how two photons could interact under Bose-Einstein Statistics (BES), such as for entanglement or executing gate operations.
Consider a switch to a focus on the intersection of quantum and AI. Not the current fads of machine learning and QML, but more on how quantum effects might be needed to enable true intelligence. How quantum effects may be required for a human brain and human mind to function, intelligently. Might quantum effects be needed to achieve true higher-order human-level intelligence (AGI), or maybe needed even for basic animal intelligence. Unfortunately, this is more of a blue-sky research area rather than primed for commercialization. Still, if that’s what captures my attention, so be it.
Consider focusing on advances in classical quantum simulators rather than real quantum computers. Simulators configured with noise models approximating the real quantum computers expected in two to four years would be more practical targets for algorithm research, prototyping, and experimentation than current noisy real quantum computers. These are unexploited near-term opportunities that don’t require the time and expense of massive levels of multi-year research and engineering investments.
Consider focusing on hard-core research, don’t get distracted by misguided efforts to engage in premature commercialization. The fundamentals needed to produce better qubits with better connectivity. Pass on systems with low qubit fidelity (less than three nines), weak connectivity (not full any to any connectivity), or coarse granularity of phase and probability amplitude.
Consider a deeper dive on quantum error correction (QEC). A research topic. I was an eager booster in this area, but now I have some doubts. Need to dig deeper.
Consider a deeper dive on Shor’s factoring algorithm. A research topic. Try to answer more of the unanswered questions. Dig deeper into Miller’s 1976 primality test paper, upon which Shor’s algorithm is based.
Consider a switch to a focus on the other areas of quantum information science (QIS). Besides quantum computing, quantum information science also includes quantum communication, quantum networking, quantum metrology, and quantum sensing.
Consider more writing as I learn more. There are plenty of interesting topics on my writing list that I just don’t have enough knowledge about to write about them just yet. As I incrementally gain more knowledge, more of those topics will become ripe for writing.
Continue updating my glossary of terms for quantum computing. Maybe even try to flesh out the terms marked TBD — To Be Determined.
I could cut my work-like activity significantly or somewhat, but still remain somewhat active. Activity doesn’t need to be an all or nothing choice. I could cut my work-like activity in half, or by a quarter, or by three quarters, or even by 90%, but still remain at least somewhat active. I have the freedom to be flexible in this regard.
I don’t have to choose a single, definitive option — I can mix and match different aspects of different options. And evolve the mixing over time as the technology, market, and my interests evolve.
I don’t have any clear and definitive objective for the next stage of my quantum journey. Other than that my essential focus for quantum computing is on its capabilities, limitations, and issues.
My default choice is to continue as before, or take a little break, try a few things differently for a few months, and then decide.
My model is to write only when I can’t resist writing.
Is my quantum journey actually now at its end? It might be. I don’t think so, but it’s very possible. After all, I have completed so many of my most urgent writing interests. Let’s see in a few months.
Have I exhausted my efforts at understanding the capabilities, limitations, and issues of quantum computing? No, but a brief or even longer pause at this juncture could allow me to rest, regroup, and give me some fresh perspective on how to look at quantum computing.
Plenty of runway ahead for quantum computing and my interests in understanding its capabilities, limitations, and issues. How much of that I pursue, when, and at what pace, and at what depth remains to be seen.
I may be officially retired in two years. It’s getting to be about that time. Work and work-like activities have lost most of their appeal for me. Not sure if any of the lingering appeal will remain in two years.
No clarity as to whether I will be very involved in quantum computing two years from now.
Unlikely that I will be very active in quantum computing in five years. Unlikely three years into retirement. But never say never.
When and where and how I let people know about any decision I make will depend on my decision. Some decisions or experimentation may take months before it’s a final decision on the path and pace of my quantum journey and its next stage in particular.

For more of my writing: List of My Papers on Quantum Computing.