As quantum computing advances, who’s thinking about ethics?

With great processing power comes great responsibility. And quantum computing is already—at least on some specific measures—tens of millions of times faster than traditional.

As the early-stage field begins to build momentum, some experts are exploring a familiar balancing act in tech ethics: How can we ensure responsible development of the field without stifling innovation?

Potential applications for quantum computing, spanning critical fields like medicine and energy, are likely many years away, but the sector is growing fast. Google, Intel, Microsoft, Amazon, and IBM all have their own programs; investors poured at least $1 billion into quantum computing startups last year; and President Biden recently signed an executive order for US quantum advancement.

At this year’s World Economic Forum, academic and industry leaders wrote themes of governance and core values to guide quantum computing’s design and adoption. Among the core values is “non-maleficence,” recommending that stakeholders ensure that “quantum computing does not put humans at risk of harm, either in the intended or unintended outcomes of its use, and that it is not used for nefarious purposes.”  One example of such a potentially harmful purpose is that quantum computing could eventually allow hackers to break encryption.

Quantum code of conduct

Quantum computing’s private sector tends to be “kind of selective” about when to bring up ethics, Lee Vinsel, associate professor of science, technology, and society at Virginia Tech, told Emerging Tech Brew.

That’s partly because companies are focused on quantum computing’s outstanding science and engineering problems, and partly because corporate goals are ultimately steered by profit.

“It’s not the central part of the discussion, which is more about making something operational and eventually profitable, hopefully,” Vinsel said.

All three of the sources we spoke with for this piece said the key challenge is giving this early-stage tech enough room to breathe, while also ensuring a more responsible development arc than that of the AI field.

“A big part of it is to not stifle, especially in the early days, but certainly learn from our predecessors with AI,” Jerry Chow, IBM’s director of quantum infrastructure, said. “If anything, AI has given us a lot of interesting corner cases that certainly tells us what to look out for, and we just need to be mindful of that as we develop the technology. But certainly, I’d say it’s about the community-building, it’s about continuing our roadmap and driving towards quantum advantage, bringing value to clients and users. And from there…as we go along, I’m sure we will be working to make the right societal decisions, too.”

Mauritz Kop, a Transatlantic Technology Law Forum fellow at Stanford University who writes about regulating AI and quantum computing, stressed that even though the field is early, now is the time to codify ethical best practices.

“We were obviously too late for AI, and now, [for quantum computing], we still have the chance to be in time before the technology gets locked in,” Kop told us. “So it’s always a Collingridge dilemma from when to interfere in the innovation process and steering things into the right direction by regulation, or controls, or embedding the values into the tech. All this did not happen for AI, and we can see the results around us. So we really need to respond to this call to action by creating the governance structures, and the regulatory frameworks, and the lists of principles and best practices to guide this tech.”

In a paper in the Yale Journal of Law & Technology, Kop has called for impact assessments in quantum computing.

Vinsel believes that regulation could be the best way forward for quantum computing once the field’s risks become clearer. If companies like IBM and Google build out businesses in quantum-computing-as-a-service, he said, then regulating them as service providers could pave the way forward.

But he added that any initial efforts to provide guardrails for the still-developing world of quantum computing should be clear-eyed about what the technology can achieve right now—more rooted in current active risks than future potential ones.

“If we want to take part as scholars or people who think about ethics, we just need to be careful not to help hype the technology,” Vinsel said. He added, “We always need to be realistic about where the technology is at and what the actual hazards are.”

Kop also believes it’s vital to be transparent with the public about what quantum computing currently can and cannot do, but he thinks it’s also necessary to address the “Pandora’s Box of unknown risks.”

“The Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors exemplifies the moral responsibility of medical professionals towards their patients, and similarly, quantum technology has its own specific ethical challenges and dilemmas—and in this case, our society is the patient,” Kop said, referencing an opinion piece he recently wrote. “Ethics is really important there. So it’s all about human conduct and moral standards being converted into practical rules, principles, and responsibilities.”