Table of Contents
Introduction
In the ever-accelerating world of quantum computing, two terms have emerged as the darlings of headlines and conference keynotes: quantum supremacy and quantum advantage. If you’ve followed the news, you might think they’re interchangeable buzzwords celebrating the dawn of a new computing era. But dig a little deeper, and you’ll uncover a subtle yet spirited debate among the field’s top minds – one that’s as much about language and perception as it is about physics.
Just last fall, in October 2019, Google made waves by announcing it had achieved “quantum supremacy” with its Sycamore processor, a 53-qubit behemoth that reportedly solved a specific problem in 200 seconds – a feat that would take the world’s fastest supercomputer 10,000 years. The claim, detailed in a paper published in Nature, sparked jubilation, skepticism, and, yes, a terminological tussle that’s still rippling through the community in early 2020. “Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor“. But is “supremacy” the right word? Or should we pivot to “advantage” for a more humble, practical tone?
The Birth of “Quantum Supremacy”: A Milestone for Noisy Quantum Machines
Let’s start at the beginning. The phrase “quantum supremacy” was coined in 2012 by John Preskill, a theoretical physicist at Caltech and a pioneer in quantum error correction. He introduced the term in his essay “Quantum computing and the entanglement frontier,” where he envisioned a future where quantum devices could tackle problems intractable for classical computers.
Preskill’s definition is elegantly provocative: Quantum supremacy describes the point at which a programmable quantum device can perform a computation that would be “extremely difficult to carry out on a conventional supercomputer,” even if the task itself isn’t particularly useful. Think of it as a proof-of-principle stunt – a quantum flex to show that the weird laws of quantum mechanics can indeed yield computational power beyond classical limits.
Why “supremacy”? Preskill has explained it as capturing the “dramatic and qualitatively different” superiority of quantum systems for certain problems, like simulating quantum entanglement or sampling from random circuits. In a 2019 Quanta Magazine interview “Why I Called It ‘Quantum Supremacy’“, he doubled down: “I wanted a term that would capture the imagination… something that would convey the excitement of the field.”
Fast-forward to Google’s 2019 experiment: Their Sycamore chip ran a random quantum circuit sampling task, generating outputs that classical verification would take eons to match. It wasn’t solving climate models or cracking encryption (yet) – just verifying the quantum hardware’s edge on a contrived benchmark. Critics, including IBM, fired back, arguing that optimized classical algorithms could slash that 10,000-year estimate to mere days. Still, for many, it marked a symbolic win for the “noisy intermediate-scale quantum” (NISQ) era Preskill foresaw – devices with 50-100 qubits, prone to errors but capable of supremacy-lite demos.
Enter “Quantum Advantage”: Utility Over Hype?
If quantum supremacy is the flashy fireworks show, quantum advantage is the reliable engine quietly powering the car. The term gained traction as a counterpoint, emphasizing practical benefits over existential boasts. Broadly, it refers to any scenario where a quantum computer outperforms classical ones on a useful task – think accelerating drug discovery via molecular simulations or optimizing supply chains with quantum annealing.
Unlike supremacy, which Preskill ties to NISQ hardware without needing full error correction, quantum advantage often implies fault-tolerant systems that can run reliably at scale. It’s less about “we beat you” and more about “we’re better for this job.” The phrase echoes earlier uses in quantum algorithms literature, like Peter Shor’s 1994 factoring algorithm, which promised an exponential speedup for cryptography – clear advantage material.
But here’s where the plot thickens: In December 2019, a letter in Nature “Instead of ‘supremacy’ use ‘quantum advantage’” from 13 leading quantum scientists – including names like Umesh Vazirani (UC Berkeley) and Scott Aaronson (University of Texas) – called for ditching “supremacy” altogether in favor of “quantum advantage.” Their piece argues that “supremacy” evokes Cold War-era nuclear dominance, potentially alienating collaborators and the public.
The signatories, a who’s-who of the field, write: “We take issue with the use of ‘supremacy’ when referring to quantum computers that can out-calculate even the fastest supercomputers… It has become commonplace to describe any quantum computation that is intractable for classical computers as ‘supremacy.’” They propose “advantage” to highlight meaningful speedups on real problems, fostering a “more accurate and inclusive” narrative. It’s a plea for precision: Supremacy risks overhyping lab curiosities, while advantage points toward commercial viability.
The Conflict Unfolds: Language as a Quantum Gate
This isn’t just semantics – it’s a microcosm of quantum computing’s growing pains. On one side, Preskill and supremacy enthusiasts see the term as motivational rocket fuel. In his Quanta piece, he admits the militaristic vibe but insists it aptly describes the “insurmountable lead” quantum tech could claim. Google’s team leaned into it hard for their Nature splash, betting the buzz would draw talent and funding.
On the other, the 13 researchers’ letter – penned amid the post-Google frenzy – reflects broader unease. Quantum computing is still embryonic: Error rates hover at 1% per gate, scalability stalls at dozens of qubits, and practical apps remain theoretical. Why fan flames with a term that could backfire if classical tricks close the gap? Aaronson, a vocal critic, has blogged extensively on the pitfalls of hype, noting in 2019 that supremacy claims invite “gotcha” rebuttals that undermine trust. Their letter landed just weeks after Google’s paper, amplifying the timing: Was this a direct jab at Mountain View?
The debate spilled into blogs, Twitter threads, and panels at QIP 2020 (the field’s marquee conference, held virtually amid early pandemic whispers). IBM’s Scott Crowder echoed the caution in their response, while startups like Rigetti and IonQ quietly adopted “advantage” in pitches. Even Preskill has shown flexibility, suggesting in interviews that both terms have merit if used judiciously.
Why This Matters: Beyond the Buzzwords
As we navigate 2020 – a year already stacked with uncertainties from trade wars to global health scares – the quantum debate feels timely. With billions in investments from governments (China’s $10B push) and Big Tech (Microsoft’s topological qubits), clear language could bridge the “quantum winter” fears of the 1990s. Supremacy inspires awe, driving progress; advantage tempers expectations, ensuring sustainability.
Ultimately, whether you say “supremacy” or “advantage,” the goal is the same: Harnessing quantum weirdness for humanity’s toughest puzzles. Google’s feat, flaws and all, proves we’re closer than ever. As Preskill put it, “The entanglement frontier is where the action is.” Let’s just agree on the map.
