Go further · Chapter 16 · 16b · A step deeper
How do you read a quantum computing press release?
The short answer (tap to open)
Read the small print first. Find the paper and check whether it's peer reviewed. Check whether results came from real quantum hardware or a simulation, what the company compared them with, and whether the task was useful. Watch for words like "up to", "could" and "first-ever". Count physical against logical qubits, and look for an independent expert's comment.
Where should you look first?
- The bottom: the "about" paragraph says who wrote it and why. A listed company's release often includes a legal note that its statements about the future may not come true.
- The link: is there a paper? Published in a journal, or a preprint? No paper at all is a warning sign.
- The numbers: are they from a real run on quantum hardware, or "simulated", "projected" or "estimated"?
Which words should make you slow down?
- "Up to" gives the best case, not the usual one.
- "Could", "may", "paves the way" describe hopes, not results.
- "World's first" often comes with a narrow definition attached.
- "Transform", "revolutionise" describe marketing, not measurements.
- "Qubits" without an error rate tells you little (chapter 11).
- "Beyond classical" needs "compared with which method, by whom?"
Tap the phrases that should make you slow down. (A made-up release.)
QubitCo achieves in logistics, . The breakthrough global supply chains. QubitCo's new chip has . Results were .
Flags found: 0 of 8.
Both releases, with their notes
QubitCo achieves world-first quantum advantage in logistics, up to 40% faster. The breakthrough could transform global supply chains. QubitCo's new chip has 1,000 qubits. Results were projected from simulations. Full details will follow. "This changes everything," said QubitCo's chief executive.
- world-first "World's first" often comes with a narrow definition attached. First at what, exactly?
- quantum advantage Compared with what? Ahead of the best ordinary method, or an old, slow one?
- up to 40% faster "Up to" gives the best case, not the usual one.
- could transform "Could" describes a hope, not a result.
- 1,000 qubits Qubits without an error rate tell you little. Physical or logical?
- projected from simulations Not a run on real quantum hardware.
- Full details will follow. No paper to check, peer reviewed or not.
- "This changes everything," said QubitCo's chief executive. Only the company's own voice. Look for a named independent expert.
What a careful release looks like (also made up): Researchers report in a peer-reviewed journal, linked below, a test on 56 physical qubits with two-qubit errors of about 1 in 1,000. The task has no practical use yet. Ordinary methods matched it at smaller sizes, and the team has invited an independent group to check the largest runs.
Who can you ask?
Look for a named independent expert quoted in the coverage, not just the company's own staff. Specialist outlets often add expert comment within days. For big claims, wait a week: rebuttals often arrive fast (page 16a).
Check
Two quick ones
Collect
Your aha card
Read the small print first.
Paper, hardware, comparison, usefulness, independent comment.