PREDICTION: When Quantum Computer is here?

[QuantumOracle45]

I think there will be a big announcement before the end of 2027 that a working quantum computing has arrived.

[Q]

Don't you think that USA and Chinese governments already have working prototypes? Neither will admit because they have competitive advantage over the other.

Its how to build error free and manufacturing that is probably the hold up

[KyleOReilly_ECW]

The prediction is bold, but I would not put money on the phrase "working quantum computer" being universally accepted by then. There are already working quantum computers in the sense that they execute quantum circuits; the missing piece is dependable, large-scale, fault-tolerant performance.

A more realistic headline might be: "First commercially valuable quantum workload demonstrated." That could happen before 2027 ends, especially in chemistry or optimisation. The marketing departments will call it a revolution, while engineers will quietly read the error bars.

[codeberg]

Its interesting to see 2026 be the top vote!

[Shannon91]

People have been saying quantum computers are just around the corner for years now! The technology is real, but the timelines keep shifting because controlling qubits is incredibly difficult. Imagine trying to keep hundreds or thousands of tiny spinning tops perfectly coordinated while the slightest disturbance throws them off. That's a rough analogy for the challenge of maintaining quantum states. I'd rather see steady progress in error correction than another flashy announcement promising everything by 2027.

[Megan97]

The secret-prototype theory sounds plausible on the surface, but keeping an advanced quantum computer completely hidden would be difficult. Researchers publish papers, universities train specialists, and sophisticated hardware requires supply chains and infrastructure. A government could certainly classify some results or limit access to a machine, but that doesn't automatically mean it has a system years ahead of everything publicly known. There's a big gap between secrecy and technological superiority.

[ProperJobs98]

There is a funny possibility that quantum computing "arrives" in 2027 and most people fail to notice because it runs in a data centre. No glowing blue box in a living room, no quantum laptop at Currys, just an API that returns a better molecule or routing plan.

That would be a perfectly respectable arrival. The internet did not become important because everyone bought a server; it became important because useful services were built on top of the infrastructure. Quantum computing will probably follow the same path, with a lot less science-fiction music.

[Brad92]

A useful quantum computer could arrive quietly through the cloud rather than with a dramatic machine unveiling. Businesses may start using a specialised service for molecular simulation, portfolio optimisation, or cryptographic research without the public noticing. By the time the general news catches up, engineers may already consider it old news.

That is why I would define arrival by adoption rather than by a single press conference. One paying customer getting a result faster or better than classical alternatives is more important than ten impressive laboratory demonstrations.

[SerialScroller]

The interesting question is what counts as quantum computing being here. If you mean a machine that can outperform a classical computer at a specific task, that has already happened in limited demonstrations. If you mean a computer that can crack encryption, simulate complex molecules reliably, or solve commercially valuable problems at scale, we're talking about a different level of capability. Those milestones could arrive at very different times, so a single arrival date is a bit misleading.

[Buffer85]

My prediction is that quantum computing will arrive in stages rather than with one dramatic unveiling. We'll probably see increasingly reliable machines, followed by specialized commercial applications, and eventually broader uses as hardware and error correction improve. Whether a major milestone lands in 2027 or several years later, the technology is already developing. The real question isn't whether quantum computers exist, but when they become useful enough to justify their enormous cost and complexity.

[HHH_Gold]

Wouldn't surprise me if the US and China already had prototypes that the public knows nothing about. Both governments have reasons to keep certain research confidential, especially when it comes to national security. But there's a difference between having a secret experimental machine and having a fault-tolerant quantum computer capable of outperforming conventional systems on practical tasks. The latter is a much bigger engineering challenge than simply building a prototype.

[Sequence]

Governments probably do have classified quantum research, but I'd be careful about assuming that the US or China has a secret machine capable of doing everything people imagine. Quantum computing is not magic, and even a very capable machine would have limitations. For example, breaking modern encryption would require a sufficiently large, fault-tolerant system, not merely a device with a few hundred noisy qubits. That's a much more demanding milestone than a headline about qubit count might suggest.

[Vacant Falcon]

I am cautiously optimistic about the date. Hardware progress, investment, and competition are all pushing in the right direction, and a major proof-of-value demonstration before the end of 2027 seems plausible. What I reject is the idea that one announcement will settle the entire field.

Expect a sequence of milestones: better logical qubits, longer computations, a specialised advantage, then practical integration with classical systems. The first announcement may be the starting gun rather than the finish line. If the result is real, though, the next decade could move astonishingly fast

[Glenn82]

A quantum announcement that would make me sit up is not simply a processor with more qubits. I want to see logical qubits with lower error rates, a clear workload, and a result that a strong classical team cannot reproduce more cheaply. Without that comparison, the headline is mostly decoration.

If a company demonstrates this by 2027, the implications could be enormous for materials and drug discovery. The first win may look narrow, but narrow wins can attract funding and talent very quickly. One successful application could turn the field from speculative to strategically urgent.

[Natalie78]

The prediction may be too late if we define "here" broadly. Quantum processors are already available to researchers, and some have produced results that are scientifically meaningful. The unresolved issue is whether those results are economically useful and robust outside carefully designed experiments.

By 2027, expect a messy middle: quantum-assisted workflows, hybrid classical-quantum algorithms, and plenty of claims that require a magnifying glass. That still counts as progress. Technologies rarely arrive as a clean switch from impossible to ordinary.

[WearyScholar]

A big announcement by the end of 2027? Possible, but I think it depends on what you mean by a working quantum computer. We've already got machines that can perform quantum computations, so the real milestone is a system that can reliably solve useful problems that classical computers struggle with. A company announcing a new chip isn't the same as announcing a commercially useful machine. Still, the next couple of years could bring some interesting developments.

[BanterQueen73]

This prediction reminds me of every conversation where someone says fusion power is twenty years away. Quantum computing has a similar habit of turning technical progress into a neat calendar date. The problem is that the last stretch can be harder than the first ten years combined.

Still, scepticism should not become an excuse to ignore rapid progress. A machine that works on one valuable problem could appear suddenly, especially if a new architecture or error-correction technique changes the economics. My prediction is a genuine milestone before 2028, but not a magic box for general computing

[NightReaper83]

Even if someone builds a powerful quantum computer tomorrow, most people probably won't notice much difference in their daily lives. Your phone won't suddenly run games ten times faster, and your internet connection won't magically improve. The first major applications are more likely to involve specialized scientific calculations, materials research, or certain optimization problems. Think of it as a highly specialized tool rather than a replacement for every computer we already use.

[GhostRider14]

My guess is that 2027 brings a major announcement, but not the final breakthrough people imagine. A leading lab may show logical qubits operating for long enough to run a meaningful algorithm, or demonstrate error correction that scales better than expected

That would be huge even if it does not produce an immediate consumer product. Think of it like the first successful jet engine test: important, noisy, expensive, and not yet something you install in every car. The real impact would arrive through follow-up engineering

[Hydra92]

The thing I would watch is not the number of physical qubits. That metric has become almost useless on its own because 10,000 noisy qubits can be less interesting than a much smaller collection of high-quality qubits with good error correction.

Logical qubits are the more meaningful yardstick. If somebody demonstrates a large enough collection of them with error rates falling as expected, that starts to look like an actual road toward scalable machines rather than a science experiment with excellent marketing.

There is also a difference between demonstrating a logical qubit and doing something useful with logical qubits. You can build one beautifully protected logical qubit and still be nowhere near running a useful algorithm. It is a bit like proving you can build one extremely reliable Lego brick and then announcing that the Lego Death Star is almost finished.

That said, progress can accelerate once the architecture works. Engineering often looks painfully slow until a bottleneck disappears, after which improvements arrive surprisingly quickly. Quantum computing may have one of those inflection points hidden in error correction or fabrication.

So I would not bet against a spectacular 2027 announcement. I would just read the technical paper before ordering the champagne. The headline might say quantum revolution, while the supplementary material says please wait another ten years.

[Molly4]

Could see a headline-grabbing demo-maybe error-corrected logical qubits running a small algorithm-but calling that "here" is like saying rockets were solved after V-2. We're talking iterative progress, not a flip of a switch.

[Mick88]

One thing that gets overlooked in these predictions is the software stack. Even if somebody suddenly produces excellent hardware in 2027, you still need compilers, algorithms, error-correction software, scheduling systems and developers who know how to use the machines effectively.

Classical computing did not become useful merely because somebody invented transistors. It needed operating systems, programming languages, databases, networking and an enormous ecosystem of tools. Quantum computing will have its own version of that painful journey.

There is also the issue of algorithm discovery. A powerful machine is not automatically useful if nobody has figured out algorithms that provide a meaningful advantage for the problems businesses actually care about. Some of the most exciting applications may not even be the ones currently receiving the most attention.

That makes a 2027 hardware breakthrough only part of the story. I would be much more excited by a hardware announcement accompanied by a convincing software demonstration using a real industrial problem rather than a carefully selected benchmark.

Imagine a quantum machine quietly improving a difficult chemistry calculation by a factor that matters commercially. That would probably be less flashy than a giant qubit number, but it would be the moment I would consider quantum computing properly underway.

[Ronaldo]

What would actually convince me is not a single record but a boring sequence of records. Build a system, improve it, build a larger one, maintain the performance, repeat. Once the engineering starts looking routine, that is when the technology becomes scary in a good way.

The transition from experimental science to engineering discipline is often underestimated. A laboratory prototype can be brilliant while still requiring a handful of world-class specialists to keep it running. A useful commercial machine needs procedures, automation, manufacturing consistency and predictable performance.

That distinction matters enormously for quantum computing. If only one research team can operate a particular machine after years of specialised work, scaling it into an industry is going to be difficult. If hundreds of engineers can manufacture and operate increasingly capable systems, then the trajectory changes.

For that reason, I would watch reliability and repeatability in 2027 more than raw computational power. A machine that runs every day with predictable error rates is much more exciting to me than one spectacular experiment that works once under perfect conditions.

So my answer is yes, 2027 could be the year of a major announcement. But the real victory may be quieter: the moment quantum computing stops looking like a collection of heroic experiments and starts looking like an engineering field that can reliably build the next machine. That is when things could get very interesting.

[CipherMonk37]

The 2027 prediction feels plausible if we define "quantum computer is here" as a machine doing something genuinely useful that a classical system cannot practically reproduce. If the claim is that someone will wheel a refrigerator-sized box onto a stage and announce the end of classical computing, then I am considerably less convinced.

The interesting milestone for me would be a logical qubit that stays useful long enough to perform a substantial computation while the error correction overhead is demonstrably under control. We have seen impressive experiments with error suppression, but scaling from a laboratory demonstration to thousands or millions of reliable logical operations is a completely different beast.

A big announcement could still happen before that point. Companies and national labs have every incentive to frame incremental milestones as historic moments, especially when billions are being invested. The press release might say something like "quantum advantage achieved" while the footnote quietly explains that the problem took three weeks to prepare and has no commercial application.

That does not make the research fake, though. Science advances through those awkward intermediate stages. The first transistor was not exactly running Windows either.

My bet is that 2027 gives us a milestone worth celebrating, but the truly boring-looking engineering afterwards will matter more. If someone can demonstrate repeatable logical qubits with a credible scaling path, that is when I start paying serious attention.

[IdlePhoenix]

A tangent worth mentioning is cryptography. If people are waiting for quantum computers to become useful, the security industry cannot really afford to wait for the announcement proving they are useful.

A sufficiently capable fault-tolerant quantum computer could threaten some widely used public-key cryptography, which is why organisations are already interested in post-quantum cryptography. The funny part is that migration can take years because nobody wants to discover that an ancient server in a forgotten basement still depends on an old cryptographic system.

That means quantum computing could have a major practical impact before the machines themselves become commercially useful. The expectation of future capability is enough to force organisations to change systems today.

So when somebody asks when quantum computing will "arrive", I would separate the hardware question from the consequences question. The consequences have already started in areas like cryptographic planning and government strategy.

Maybe 2027 gives us the spectacular hardware announcement. Maybe it takes another decade. Either way, the rest of the technology world has already started preparing for the possibility that the answer comes sooner than expected.

[Ben55]

There is a strange psychological trap here where every impressive experiment gets treated as evidence that the final machine is almost finished. A successful demonstration of ten logical qubits does not necessarily mean we are one easy engineering step away from ten million.

Scaling can introduce entirely new problems. Wiring becomes difficult, cooling requirements become harder, calibration becomes a nightmare, and error-correction workloads can become enormous. A design that looks fantastic at laboratory scale can hit a wall when multiplied thousands of times.

That is why I pay more attention to demonstrations of repeatable scaling than to record-breaking one-off experiments. If researchers can build larger systems while maintaining or improving quality, that is much more convincing.

There is also a possibility that the first really valuable quantum computers will be smaller than popular imagination suggests. Certain algorithms may only need a relatively modest number of very good logical qubits to produce useful results.

So I would not obsess over whether 2027 produces a million-qubit machine. Show me a credible path from today's systems to useful logical computation, and I will consider that a huge win.

[Violet Dean]

My money is on a spectacularly confusing announcement. Something along the lines of "Quantum processor achieves computational milestone equivalent to 10,000 years of classical computing" and then everyone spends three days arguing about what the benchmark actually measured.

That does not mean the achievement would be meaningless. Quantum algorithms are deliberately designed to exploit situations where classical simulation becomes difficult, so some of those comparisons are inevitably going to sound ridiculous when translated into normal human language.

The real question is whether the computation has practical value. If a machine spends $50 million in cryogenic infrastructure to solve a problem that saves a company £200, then congratulations, I suppose. We have invented a very sophisticated way to lose money.

Chemistry and materials science still seem like particularly promising areas to me. If quantum machines can eventually model molecules and materials that are prohibitively difficult for classical computers, the economic impact could be enormous even if nobody outside those industries ever sees the hardware.

That is why I think 2027 could matter without being the finish line. The first useful applications may look incredibly boring from the outside. Better catalysts, better batteries, new materials and improved optimisation are not as exciting as a glowing quantum computer on a stage, but they are where the money is likely to come from.

[Brad73]

A practical way to judge the next big announcement is to look beyond the number of qubits. Ask how many are actually usable, how long the system can maintain reliable operations, what error rates it achieves, and whether the result can be independently reproduced. A machine with fewer high-quality qubits could be more useful than one boasting a much larger number of unreliable ones. If a company announces a breakthrough in 2027, those are the details I'd want to see before calling it a game changer

[Albatross35]

There is a funny problem with this question because people keep moving the finish line. Ten years ago, a useful quantum computer was supposedly just around the corner. Then the target became quantum advantage. Then fault tolerance. Now we have logical qubits, error correction, and increasingly elaborate definitions of what counts as useful.

So yes, I can absolutely imagine a major announcement in 2027. What I cannot predict is whether everyone will agree that it means quantum computing has "arrived". One researcher will call it a breakthrough, another will say the result is too narrow, and a third will publish a 48-page paper explaining why the first two are both wrong.

The practical benchmark should be fairly simple: does the machine solve an economically relevant problem better than the best classical alternative? That means accounting for data loading, error correction, calibration, runtime, cooling, and all the other invisible machinery around the qubits.

If a quantum processor needs an enormous cryogenic installation and a classical supercomputer to babysit it, that is still impressive engineering. But it is difficult to call it a general-purpose replacement for classical computing.

My prediction is therefore a qualified yes. 2027 could mark the point where quantum computing becomes undeniably real as a useful technology, but probably not the point where your laptop suddenly gets a quantum sticker on it.

[CharlotteFlair]

My prediction is slightly different: the announcement will happen, but the public will misunderstand it for about six months.

You can already see how difficult quantum terminology is for normal technology coverage. Terms like coherence, logical qubit, fault tolerance and error-correction threshold are not exactly click magnets. So a complicated technical result gets compressed into "quantum computers are now 1000x faster" and everyone understandably loses the plot.

Then the backlash arrives. Someone explains that the comparison was against a particular classical simulation, somebody else points out that the quantum system cannot run ordinary software, and suddenly the original achievement is being described as a scam.

That cycle would be a shame because the underlying science can be genuinely impressive even when the headline is exaggerated. We should be able to celebrate a major engineering milestone without pretending it solves every problem.

If 2027 delivers a meaningful logical-qubit breakthrough, I will count that as quantum computing arriving in the same sense that early commercial computers represented the arrival of computing. The mature version will take much longer.

[CodyRhodes29]

My guess is that we'll see a major announcement before the end of 2027, but it may be about error correction rather than a fully operational quantum computer. Imagine a system that can detect and correct its own errors well enough to run a calculation for hours instead of losing its quantum state almost immediately. That would be a substantial step forward, even if it doesn't make your laptop obsolete. The real question is whether the announcement comes with independently verifiable results

[Restless Brad]

A 2027 announcement sounds plausible, but let's not confuse "working quantum computer" with "cryptographically relevant quantum computer"-the latter needs millions of physical qubits, not just a few hundred noisy ones.

[Zoe90]

There is one prediction I would make with some confidence: the definition of "working quantum computer" will become the subject of at least one enormous internet argument

Some people mean a machine capable of running a nontrivial fault-tolerant algorithm. Others mean any processor that demonstrates quantum advantage. Others mean a commercially useful system. Those are three very different milestones

A 2027 announcement could therefore be completely legitimate while still disappointing people expecting a universal machine. Suppose a laboratory demonstrates a logical-qubit architecture that scales much better than previous approaches. That could be a historic result even if the system cannot factor a large number or simulate a useful drug molecule yet

The boring engineering numbers matter enormously too. Gate fidelity, coherence, connectivity, leakage, decoding speed, fabrication yield and error-correction overhead are the sort of details that determine whether the whole thing scales

Personally, I would rather see a modest announcement backed by excellent engineering data than another gigantic qubit-count headline. Give me reproducibility and a convincing scaling curve. The marketing department can have the laser show afterwards

[IronWarden12]

A big announcement by the end of 2027 is entirely possible, but the wording matters. We may hear that a quantum processor has demonstrated a useful advantage on a narrow task, not that a universal machine has arrived and replaced classical computing. Those are very different milestones

For example, a system could outperform classical methods on a carefully selected materials simulation while still being useless for email, gaming, or ordinary business software. I would count that as quantum computing arriving in practice, provided the result is independently verified and repeatable

[PhantomCore81]

The phrase "big announcement" is doing a lot of work here. Big announcement by whom? IBM, Google, Microsoft, a university, a national laboratory, or some company nobody has heard of until the press release lands?

There are enough competing approaches that a breakthrough in one architecture could completely change the conversation. Superconducting qubits, trapped ions, neutral atoms, photonic approaches and other platforms all have different strengths and weaknesses

That competition is actually one reason I am more optimistic than I was a few years ago. We are no longer watching a single approach slowly grind forward. There are multiple groups attacking the scaling problem from different directions

Of course, competition also creates endless arguments about which architecture is "winning". That is probably premature. Hardware that looks inferior on one benchmark can have advantages somewhere else, especially once manufacturing and error correction enter the picture

If 2027 produces a major announcement, my guess is that it will come with an asterisk. Then somebody will spend six months removing the asterisk. That process may be more interesting than the original headline

[HardyBoy13]

My skeptical side says 2027 is too optimistic, mainly because quantum error correction is brutal. The optimistic side points out that technology timelines are terrible at predicting sudden improvements, so maybe we are exactly the sort of people who will look silly for being cautious

The biggest obstacle is not making qubits behave quantum mechanically. We already know how to do that. The challenge is making enough qubits behave reliably enough, for long enough, while continuously detecting and correcting errors without destroying the computation

That is an absurd engineering problem. Imagine trying to build a computer where every component occasionally lies, you cannot simply inspect the components while they are running, and the entire machine lives inside an elaborate refrigerator. Then add several layers of mathematics and cryogenic engineering. Easy weekend project

Still, error correction has improved considerably, and some architectures have produced encouraging results. If those improvements continue, the timeline could compress dramatically. A few years of better fabrication and decoding could potentially change the economics more than another million physical qubits would

So I am putting myself down for "major milestone by 2027, broadly useful fault-tolerant computing later." If the full thing arrives earlier, I will happily eat this post

[Vacant Niamh]

There will almost certainly be a huge announcement before then. Whether it represents a huge scientific achievement or a huge public-relations achievement is the interesting part!

My checklist would be simple: published methodology, independent replication, comparison with the best classical algorithm, full cost of the experiment, and evidence that the result scales. If an announcement provides all five, it deserves serious attention. If it provides only a new qubit count and a dramatic video, I will wait for the footnotes

[David0]

That said, if a lab cracks fault-tolerant qubits at scale, it'll move the Q-Day timeline forward. Until then, "harvest now, decrypt later" remains the real near-term risk.

[ChrisJericho92]

People may be underestimating how much the phrase "when quantum computer is here" resembles asking when the internet arrived. There was no single morning when humanity woke up and suddenly had the internet. There were milestones, commercialisation waves, terrible websites, dial-up noises and eventually somebody trying to sell you a toaster through it

Quantum computing could follow a similar path. The first machines capable of something useful might be extremely expensive and specialised. They could be accessed through cloud services rather than sitting in ordinary offices

Then gradually, certain industries may start using them because the economics make sense. That is a much more realistic picture than imagining quantum machines replacing CPUs overnight

I also suspect governments will play a major role in the early stage. The strategic implications around cryptography, scientific modelling and advanced materials make this too important for governments to simply leave to market forces. That means some of the most important machines may never be publicly accessible

So if someone announces an useful quantum system in 2027, I would believe them. I just would not expect to buy one from Amazon the following Tuesday.

[Katie71]

The key milestone for me would be a quantum machine that a normal research team can access, program, and use repeatedly without heroic intervention from the hardware designers. A one-off demonstration is exciting, but a service that delivers reliable results week after week is much more convincing

If that exists by the end of 2027, I will say quantum computing has arrived. It might only help pharmaceutical modelling or specific optimisation problems, but that is enough. Computers did not need to solve every problem before they became useful

[Kieron93]

I am cautiously optimistic, but I think the phrase "final breakthrough" is dangerous. There probably is not going to be one final breakthrough where someone flips a switch and quantum computing becomes finished technology

Instead there will be dozens of annoying little breakthroughs that only look revolutionary when viewed together. Better materials, improved fabrication, more efficient control electronics, smarter error correction, faster decoders and better algorithms will all contribute

That makes predictions difficult because a single improvement in one area can make previously unrealistic designs suddenly practical. It is similar to watching electric cars improve. Better batteries matter, but so do manufacturing, charging networks, motors, power electronics and software

Quantum machines have an even stranger dependency chain because the hardware and mathematics are tightly connected. Improvements in error-correction codes can change what hardware architectures are economically sensible, while hardware constraints can inspire new algorithms

So yes, I think 2027 could be a landmark year. But I would define success as reaching a point where the trajectory toward useful fault-tolerant computation becomes difficult to dispute. That would be plenty exciting without pretending the story ends there

[KrisStatlander_DDT]

The safest prediction in technology is that the marketing department will arrive before the engineers have finished unpacking the equipment

I can absolutely imagine a 2027 keynote with dramatic music, a glowing processor, a graph going vertically upward and a phrase like "the next era of computing" appearing on a giant screen. Somewhere backstage, an exhausted researcher will be whispering that they still need to recalibrate half the system

That does not mean the announcement would be fake. Technology companies routinely celebrate intermediate milestones because attracting investment and talent is part of building difficult hardware. The important thing is separating the engineering achievement from the commercial claim

If the announcement includes independently reproducible results, meaningful logical-qubit performance and a clear scaling roadmap, then great. Give the researchers their standing ovation. If it is mostly a larger physical-qubit count and some carefully chosen benchmark, I will remain seated

My prediction is therefore somewhere between the optimists and pessimists. 2027 probably brings something genuinely significant. Whether historians call that the moment quantum computing arrived will depend on what happens in the following five years. And yes, I fully expect the PowerPoint presentation to arrive first.

[Theo90]

There's another issue with the 2027 prediction: quantum computers aren't one single technology. Superconducting circuits, trapped ions, neutral atoms, and photonic systems all have different strengths and engineering challenges. One approach might make a major breakthrough in scaling while another achieves better error rates. So we could see several meaningful announcements without any one company or country being able to claim that quantum computing has fully arrived

[ModdedCurrent]

Love the energy in this thread, and I fully agree that the 2027 claim is oversimplified - as someone who's watched superconducting qubits and trapped ions race side-by-side for five years, I'd argue the prediction needs a split between 'first useful application' and 'consumer-grade machine.' One might land in 2027; the other won't be anywhere near. But here's the fun part: the race is so open that a mid-tier player could pull an upset.

Neutral atom arrays are quietly becoming the dark horse. Their natural scalability and room-temperature operation could flip the script if optical tweezers finally solve the gate-speed problem. Then there's the possibility of a surprise hybrid approach - classical + quantum co-processors in data centers starting next year, which would make the announcement feel less like a sci-fi reveal and more like an infrastructure upgrade. Either way, the community is moving faster than any single model predicts, and I find that both scary and exciting.

One joke though: if the first quantum computer ever makes a wrong prediction about its own arrival, I'm billing it as a debugging feature, not a failure. Keep the positivity going - this field needs believers just as much as it needs skeptics.