Davos and the global state of quantum – POLITICO

With help from Christine Mui and Steven Overly

Participants waiting for a session at the 2024 meeting of the World Economic Forum. | Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images

Davos wants you to plan to have a plan on quantum technology.

The World Economic Forum that sponsors the annual Switzerland confab released a Quantum Economy Blueprint today its first major paper on how a global economy centered around quantum technology might develop, even as many skeptics say the technology isnt yet ready for prime time.

Its authors, a trio of researchers from the WEF, AI and quantum startup SandboxAQ, and IBM, lay out a set of recommendations and examples for how countries can find their fit in the global development of quantum computing, sensing, and communications technologies especially as China invests billions into the technology largely in isolation from the West.

If youve been reading DFDs past coverage of quantum developments, you might be wondering: Isnt it a bit early for this? Thats what the reports authors are counting on, writing that seizing on an early adopter advantage will allow governments to get infrastructure in place to ensure all countries are able to benefit from the gradual replacement of zeroes and ones by superposition and entanglement.

Notably, the report, with the full backing of the WEF, makes assumptions about quantum that are decidedly up for debate in the wider research community. Those include: it will be possible to build a useful, fully programmable universal fault-tolerant quantum computer; quantum computing will make the computation of specific problems more efficient or precise, and that quantum utility, the ability for existing quantum computers to solve problems beyond classical computings reach, has been demonstrated.

(Some in the commercial sector even say the WEF isnt bullish enough Allison Schwartz, government relations lead for commercial quantum company D-Wave, told DFD in a statement that the report narrowly focuses on a single approach that is far from market readiness in a manner that skews the timelines for adoption and near-term application development.)

With that in mind I pinged Sergio Gago Huerta, head of quantum at Moodys and someone who does not hesitate to call out quantum hype as the author of the Quantum Pirates Substack newsletter. Huerta was all in favor of the blueprint, saying that by focusing on governance and infrastructure it provides helpful pointers to pretty much anyone hoping to compete or even participate in the quantum economy.

Every country should have their own quantum program, either as part of a coalition or by themselves, Huerta wrote in an email. He noted that while many countries tend to focus on quantum as a cyber threat the ability of quantum computers to bust traditional cryptography is one of the most well-established findings in the field the report provides welcome focus on other technologies like quantum sensing and metrology, something governments will need to provide enough support, governance and training [for]... in order to stay relevant and keep a competitive advantage.

Celia Merzbacher, executive director of the Quantum Economic Development Consortium that aims to grow quantum in the U.S., was a consultant on the report. She praised its analysis of the complex landscape facing nations on quantum and said it would be useful to anyone working right now in the quantum technology stack.

The report takes a granular dive into nations quantum building blocks, from national research funding to politics to worker training, and finds not surprisingly that the most successful innovation efforts come from deeply interconnected and collaborative ecosystems.

One example they cite is the United Kingdoms National Quantum Strategy: In that case, pumping a billion-plus British pounds into the U.K.s research infrastructure led to a successful effort to develop commercial applications for quantum in fields like the automotive industry, telecom, and defense.

At a smaller scale, that virtuous-cycle collaboration tends to cross national boundaries, like in the case of the Quantum Leap Africa program that saw five nations team up to gather top students from across the continent and educate them about quantum.

The U.S. National Quantum Initiative, authorized by a $1.2 billion bill passed in 2018, has placed Washington at the center of this global conversation even as its re-authorization lingers in Congressional limbo. The report contains plenty of detail about the U.S. quantum push and its ripples throughout the global economy, as well as the importance of maintaining a quantum advantage to defense and national security. Where its decidedly more circumspect, however, is on exactly what those geopolitical threats are: State Department official Rick Switzer is quoted saying its critical that the United States and our allies retain access to key components in the quantum supply chain, requiring policy-makers to account for the geopolitics surrounding this access.

By geopolitics, he means China and the repercussions for quantum in what the New York Times called Americas silicon blockade against Beijing. The WEF report notes that China has spent $15 billion on quantum, more than the U.S., U.K., France and Germany combined.

The number of times China itself is referenced in the report? Exactly two, a far cry from the in-depth treatment other nations quantum strategies get. Anyone who tracks quantum development (or any other technology, for that matter) in the West knows that potential threat from Beijing is a huge political motivator for quantum policy, especially when it comes to cybersecurity. Davos plan might be a globally collaborative one, but as with so many other tech policy issues, theres a large elephant in the room thats central to its analysis while remaining oddly silent.

Also in Davos, India made its case as a democratic alternative source for electronics manufacturing to China.

The worlds fifth-largest economy for years lagged on making microchips, lacking the specialized hardware and skilled talent needed to grow the industry. Then in late 2021, the Modi government offered up $10 billion in incentives, luring companies like Micron and Tata Group to invest in new fabs. With nine semiconductor manufacturing proposals on the table, India is eager for more.

Speaking at the WEF, Chip War author Chris Miller drew parallels between India and past success stories: Taiwan, South Korea started a half century ago developing their chip industries, and today theyre the world leaders. And so I think theres no doubt that India is beginning to follow that path.

But the country wont dive into the competition around cutting-edge chips thats captured governments around the world yet choosing to first focus on legacy chips for telecommunications and cars, Indian Cabinet Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw told the panel. Asked about future pressure to take sides between China and the West, Vaishnaw dodged, saying we dont think that its a battle and that circumstances are too complex and too dynamic to imagine what could happen in a decade.

Indias semiconductor moves piqued the interest of the Netherlands, a chipmaking equipment powerhouse thats all too familiar with getting caught in the U.S.-China faceoff. Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Micky Adriaansens called India a different story from China and reiterated its plan to join forces with like-minded countries. Christine Mui

A fundamental question hangs over the global debate over how to regulate artificial intelligence: open or closed?

That is, should the most powerful AI systems be widely available to any interested developer or under the tight control of just a few players? Top politicos and tech minds grappled with that topic in Davos, including at POLITICO Lives own AI debate on Tuesday.

In the U.S., Assistant Secretary of Commerce Alan Davidson said the answer may not be so binary.

Weve learned that theres a real gradient of openness, and that we may be able to find ways, we have to be able to find ways, to support innovation and competition, but also protect safety and security as we open up these systems, Davidson told the POLITICO Tech podcast.

Davidson heads the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which has been tasked by the White House with studying the open vs. closed question. He made the case that while closed systems are seemingly easier to close off to bad actors, they also concentrate power in the hands of a small number of tech companies, many of which already exert significant influence over our daily lives.

We know that its very powerful if you can democratize access to these technologies, Davidson said. Its good for innovation. It actually can be good for safety and security. Steven Overly

Listen to the full interview with Davidson on todays POLITICO Tech.

Stay in touch with the whole team: Ben Schreckinger ([emailprotected]); Derek Robertson ([emailprotected]); Mohar Chatterjee ([emailprotected]); Steve Heuser ([emailprotected]); Nate Robson ([emailprotected]); Daniella Cheslow ([emailprotected]); and Christine Mui ([emailprotected]).

If youve had this newsletter forwarded to you, you can sign up and read our mission statement at the links provided.

Read more:

Davos and the global state of quantum - POLITICO