You’ve probably seen the headlines: IBM just proved quantum advantage. Again. Google did it first in 2019. Then they backtracked. Now IBM’s back with a new validation technique. And everyone’s clapping.
But here’s what nobody wants to say out loud: The whole thing is a PR circus dressed up as science.
Let me show you why you should be skeptical—not of quantum computing itself, but of the manufactured hype around ‘quantum advantage.’
The problem is elegant and infuriating. Quantum computers are powerful because they exploit quantum superposition and entanglement. That’s great. But the very thing that gives them their edge—exponential complexity—also makes it nearly impossible for classical computers to verify their results. You can’t prove a quantum computer did something amazing unless you can check it with a classical computer. And if you can check it, it wasn’t that amazing.
This is the verification paradox. And it’s been haunting the field since the beginning.
So what do researchers do? They invent benchmark tasks that are hard enough to impress but simple enough to still validate. Random circuit sampling. Boson sampling. These are mathematical party tricks. They have zero practical use. No one is going to run a drug discovery simulation on a random circuit sampler.
The benchmark tasks used to claim ‘quantum advantage’ are chosen precisely because they are useless—that’s the only way to prove they worked.
In 2019, Google ran a random circuit on Sycamore that took 200 seconds. They claimed it would take a classical supercomputer 10,000 years. IBM immediately challenged that, showing a better classical algorithm could do it in 2.5 days. The back-and-forth was less about science and more about who gets to own the narrative.
Now IBM has a new paper claiming verifiable quantum advantage using a modified version of the same random circuit sampling. They’ve tweaked the protocol so that the output is statistically checkable by a classical computer. Smart? Yes. Revolutionary? No.
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: The pursuit of ‘quantum advantage’ is currently a funding and PR arms race, not a technological leap. Every major player—Google, IBM, Microsoft, Honeywell—needs to show progress to keep investors, governments, and customers engaged. The milestones are manufactured. The deadlines keep slipping. And the real-world applications? Still a decade away, minimum.
I’m not saying quantum computing is useless. I’m saying the ‘advantage’ you’re reading about in the press is a carefully stage-managed performance. It’s a way to buy time while the hard engineering problems—error correction, qubit coherence, scalability—get solved in the background.
Think about it this way: If you actually had a useful quantum algorithm—say, breaking RSA encryption or revolutionizing materials science—you wouldn’t announce it. You’d keep it quiet. You’d patent it. You’d build a moat. The fact that companies are shouting from the rooftops about random circuit sampling tells you everything you need to know.
Real breakthroughs don’t need press releases. They show up in your bank account or your military strategy.
So what should you do? Keep following quantum computing. It’s genuinely fascinating. But stop treating every ‘advantage’ claim as a milestone. Instead, ask three questions: Is this benchmark useful? Can it be verified independently? And most importantly—who benefits from me believing this is a breakthrough?
The answer to the last one is almost always the same: the people who want your money or your attention.
Be skeptical. Stay curious. And remember: the best thing about quantum computing might be the questions it forces us to ask about verification, hype, and what we actually mean by ‘progress.’
FAQ
Q: Isn't IBM's new validation technique a genuine step forward?
A: It's a clever incremental improvement, but it doesn't change the fundamental issue: the benchmark tasks being validated are still useless for real-world applications. The technique only works for random circuit sampling, not for anything you'd actually want a quantum computer for.
Q: What's the practical implication for someone investing in quantum computing?
A: Don't invest based on 'advantage' headlines. The real value is in companies that are making progress on error correction, qubit coherence, and applications for specific industries (pharma, materials, finance). The hype is a distraction.
Q: Could quantum advantage be secretly achieved without public announcement?
A: Yes, and that's the point. If a company or government actually achieved a useful quantum advantage (like breaking RSA), they would keep it classified. The public claims are designed to manage expectations and secure funding, not to announce real breakthroughs.